"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

My Prayer For Miss Courtney Tarter: "That One Day, by God's Grace, You May Recover from Your Recovery"

Miss Courtney Tarter, a Southern Theological Seminary employee and theology student, wrote an article last September entitled Confessions of a Recovering Feminist. Tarter's article has been praised by Dr. Russell Moore who is the current Vice-President at Southern Seminary and the one Dr. Mohler is grooming to be the next President at Southern. Though I read the article when Miss Tarter initially posted it, I paid little attention to the content of it since I too am opposed to the liberal political feminist agenda of our culture. But, three events have occurred this week that lead me to pray for Miss Courtney Tarter's recovery from her alleged feminism recovery.

First, ABC News briefly interviewed Miss Tarter for a nationally broadcast news segment and I went back and researched Miss Tarter and her writings on The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website. It was then I realized her understanding of "feminism" was something way different than the typical Southern Baptist understanding of it. Second, my wife, who read my blogpost, was so intrigued that she ended up researching Miss Tarter's writings for herself - and told me that she was personally offended by Tarter's Confessions of a Recovering Feminist. Finally, I had the privilege this week of reading the personal memoirs of Elizabeth Keckly, an African-American seamstress who worked for Mary Todd Lincoln in the Lincoln White House, and came to the realization that the Southern Baptist Convention needs more women with the spirit of Miss Keckly and not Miss Tarter.

Drs. Mohler and Moore praise Miss Tarter's conclusions in her post, but my wife perceptively pointed out to me a couple of very serious doctrinal problems in Miss Tarter's writings. My wife of twenty-five years (Rachelle) is a conservative, evangelical Christian who has helped me raise four wonderful kids, graduated from Nursing School at forty three years of age with a 4.0 grade average, and is currently enrolled at the University of Oklahoma completing her Masters as a Clinical Nurse Specialist. She is also the sweetest woman you will ever meet, one who is rarely offended, so when she told me Tarter's article offended her, I took notice. Rachelle pointed out to me two statements in Tarter's Confessions of a Recovering Feminist that should send shivers up the spines of all Southern Baptists.

(1). "Feminism is in the core of our hearts apart from the saving work of the shed blood of Christ, and not simply because we are militant against male authority, but primarily because we are opposed to the greatest authority of all—our Creator." Miss Courtney Tarter

Feminism, according to SBC seminary trained Cortney Tarter, is opposition to male authority and God's authority.

As Southern Baptists, we keep hearing the pertinent issue in our Convention is "pastoral" authority. Paige Patterson, Al Mohler, Russell Moore, and others keep hammering away at the "liberals" who are advocating female "pastoral" authority. I keep asking questions like "What does pastoral authority have to do with female Southern Baptist Hebrew professors?" "What does pastoral authority have to do with female Vice-Presidents of the IMB?" "What does pastoral authority have to do with missionaries at the Strategy Associate level?" "What does pastoral authority have to do with Southern Baptists refusing to endorse Southern Baptist female military chaplains?" I believe Miss Courtney Tarter has provided the answer to my questions, an answer that I have suspected all along, but Moore, Patterson, Mohler and other SBC leaders are careful not to state as bluntly as Miss Tarter.

The issue is male authority in the Southern Baptist Convention, or more precisely, females are to always be subordinate to males; at all places, at all times, and under all circumstances. The issue in the SBC is not about "women pastors" and don't let anybody continue to blow that smoke in your face - it is about certain SBC leaders who believe that women should submit to men - period. Again, the issue in our Convention is the attempt to demand everyone believe in male authority over women.

A handful of powerful SBC leaders in our Convention are pushing a very bizzare scenario of removing women from leadership positions, all the while attempting to mislead us regarding the reasons for their actions. These SBC leaders, including seminary Presidents, their friends who serve as SBC agency trustees, and other strategically placed SBC leaders believe that there should never be a Southern Baptist woman with with any authority over a man. Again, they say they are seeking to protect "pastoral" authority, but it is not about "pastoral authority." Their belief is in male authority.

(2). "Instead of seeing our gender differences as mere cultural constructions we must first admit that there was something far greater going on in the Garden than we now realize, and when Creation fell, it was distorted. In creating man and woman differently, God was pointing to the beauty of the Trinitarian relationship." Miss Courtney Tarter

Pointing to the Trinity in order to establish the "eternal subordination" of the female to the male is a new and growing phenomenon. Yet this heretical teaching is taking hold among some in our Southern Baptist Convention, particularly at our seminaries, as a theological basis to keep women eternally subordinate to men. Southern Baptists best wake up to this growing tendency to use a false understanding of the Trinity to justify the eternal subordination of women to men before the pastors of our Southern Baptist churches begin to accept this doctrine as "the norm." Not only is it not normal, it borders on bizarre. Just because we admire Mohler, just because there is fear that respected seminary administrators like Dr. Moore and Dr. Patterson may torpedo your chances to get a SBC church, you shouldn't be afraid to push back. Loyalty is a major value right now in the Southern Baptist Convention, but following fidelity to the fringe of foolishness will destroy our Convention.

The Gripping, Heartwrenching Story of Elizabeth Keckley

I titled this post, My Prayer for Miss Courtney Tarter: "That One Day, By God's Grace, You May Recover from Your Recovery. What Miss Tarter needs recovery from is her warped concept that a woman is to always be submissive to male authority. That bizarre view may actually cause a Southern Baptist to teach that a wife who is being beaten by her husband should submit to the beatings (more about the tape recording I heard where a Southern Baptist Seminary President actually advocated this on a later post). Our Southern Baptist women need to understand that nowhere in Scripture does God order a woman to be subordinate to a man because of gender. Let me repeat: There is not one scrap of evidence - not one jot or tittle of the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures - that should ever cause a woman to feel she is subordinate to a man because of her gender. To militate against a woman's subordination to a man is not feminism. It is respecting the equality of the man and the woman.

For my part, I wish Miss Tarter was more like Elizabeth Keckley. Elizabeth, an African-American seamstress for the Lincoln White House, was born into slavery in 1830. Her story is an incredible journey from slavery to the White House. Without comment, I will simply encourage you to read Keckley's own words as she describes her spirit while being beaten by a very poor North Carolina Presybyterian minister in 1850. At the time of this beating, Miss Keckly was the same age as Miss Tarter. She had been given to the minister as a slave gift, the minister and his wife being unable themselves to afford any slaves. Miss Keckley was unsure as to the reason for the beating described below, but believes it was because she fell asleep while rocking the Presbyterian minister's small child.

"My master was a good-hearted man, but was influenced by his wife. It was Saturday evening, and while I was bending over the bed, watching the baby that I had just hushed into slumber, Mr. Bingham came to the door and asked me to go with him to his study. Wondering what he meant by his strange request, I followed him, and when we had entered the study he closed the door, and in his blunt way remarked, "Lizzie, I am going to flog you." I was thunderstruck, and tried to think if I had been remiss in anything. I could not recollect of doing anything to deserve punishment, and with surprise exclaimed: "Whip me, Mr. Bingham! what for?"

"No matter," he replied, "I am going to whip you, so take down your dress this instant."

Recollect, I was eighteen years of age, was a woman fully developed, and yet this man coolly bade me take down my dress. I drew myself up proudly, firmly, and said, "No, Mr. Bingham, I shall not take down my dress before you. Moreover, you shall not whip me unless you prove the stronger."

My words seemed to exasperate him. He seized a rope, caught me roughly, and tried to tie me. I resisted with all my strength, but he was the stronger of the two, and after a hard struggle succeeded in binding my hands and tearing my dress from my back. Then he picked up a rawhide, and began to ply it freely over my shoulders. With steady hand and practised eye, he would raise the instrument of torture, nerve himself for a blow, and with a fearful force the rawhide descended upon the quivering flesh. It cut the skin, raised great welts, and the warm blood trickled down my back. Oh God! I can feel the torture now - the terrible, excruciating agony of those moments. I did not scream; I was too proud to let my tormentor know what I was suffering. I closed my lips firmly, that not even a groan might escape from them, and I stood like a statue while the keen lash cut deep into my flesh. As soon as I was released, stunned with pain, bruised and bleeding . . . I exclaimed "Master, what I done that I should be punished so severely?"

I would not put off thus. "What have I done? I will know why I have been flogged."

I saw his cheeks flush with anger, but I did not move. Without an explanation, he seized a chair, struck me, and felled me to the floor. I rose, bewildered, almost dead with pain, crept to my room, dressed my bruised arms and back as best I could and then lay down, but not to sleep. No, I could not sleep, for I was suffering mental as well as bodily torture. My spirit rebelled against the unjustness that had been inflicted upon me, and though I tried to smother my anger and to forgive those who had been so cruel to me, it was impoossible. The next morning I was more calm, and I believe that I could then have forgiven everything for the sake of one kind word. But the kind word was never proffered, and it may be possible, that I grew somewhat wayward and sullen. Though I had faults, I know now, as I felt then, harshness was the poorest inducement for the correction of them. It seems that (the pastor) had pledged himself to the Mrs. to subdue what he called "my stubborn pride." On Friday following the Saturday on which I was so savagely beaten, I was again directed to come to the study. On entering the room I found him prepared with a new rope and a new cowhide. I told him that I was ready to die, but that he could not conquer me. In struggling with him I bit his finger severely, when he seized a heavy stick and beat me with it in a shameful manner. The following Thursday, again he tried to conquer me, but in vain. We struggled, and he struck me many savage blows. As I stood bleeding before him, nearly exhausted with his efforts, he burst into tears, and declared that it would be a sin to beat me any more. My suffering at last subdued his hard heart; he asked my forgiveness, and afterwards was an altered man. He who preached the love of Heaven, who glorified the precepts and examples of Christ, who expounded the Holy Scriptures Sabbath after Sabbath from the pulpit refused to whip me any more."

Miss Tarter, keep your pride in being a female. Stay strong in desiring to follow the Word of God. I pray, however, that you will one day see, as did Miss Keckley, that it is not a sin to refuse to submit to the authority of a man - or even a pastor, or even a Seminary President, or even a boss.

You, Miss Tarter, are equal to them in God-given human authority.

In His Grace,


Wade

387 comments:

1 – 200 of 387   Newer›   Newest»
Joe Blackmon said...

Let's try this dance again, shall we:
I saw nothing in what Ms. Tater said that would indicate that she thinks she is inferior to men or always has to submit herself to every man's authority. To say that is what she now feels and therefore needs to "recover from [her] recovery" is supposition at best.

I would add that I think that anyone who believes that all women have to submit to the authority of all men at all time is a goofball (i.e. women can't teach a language class in seminary, women can't serve in elected office). That, by the way, is my PROFESSIONAL opinion.

Scotte Hodel said...

Rev. Burleson,

On behalf of many I try to encourage,

Thank you!

Wade Burleson said...

Joe,

I challenge you to read her articles again.

Feminism is resistance to the male's authority.

I am not writing that - Miss Tarter is writing it.

However, I'm glad to see you and I agree. Anyone that believes women must submit to a male's authority on the basis of gender is a goofball.

Keep saying it.

Blessings,

Wade

Anonymous said...

If Miss Tarter uses creation order to affirm male authority even paralleling the Trinity, then her affirmation of the Christian Palin as VP, is hypocritical.

Strange how they cannot see that.

This is an excellent piece and I thank you for writing it. The story of the seamstress was riveting. I cannot wait to read the book.

BTW: Russell Moore has called for more Patriarchy. He says comps are wimps. And he is being groomed to be the next President? That is scary.

Lydia

Joe Blackmon said...

Wade

Read it again. Twice. The only thing close that I found on the link to the CBMW article was the following sentence:

"Feminism is in the core of our hearts apart from the saving work of the shed blood of Christ, and not simply because we are militant against male authority, but primarily because we are opposed to the greatest authority of all—our Creator."

I just don't see anything in the article that you linked to that says what you quoted. Can you help a one-eyed guy out over here if I'm missing it? Haa

Wade Burleson said...

Lydia,

I, too, am baffled at the inconsistency regarding Palin. Using her own words regarding the Trinity and "male" authority, it is impossible to support Palin.

However, I sometimes wonder if SBC leaders know how unbelievable ridiculed they would be if they dared to offer their belief in "male" authority to the world at large. I figured some of us better be very vocal on this issue before people who are not Southern Baptists make discover what is actually being said by certain SBC leaders.

Wade Burleson said...

Joe, I'll spell it out for you:

Miss Tarter writes: "Feminism is at the core of our hearts . . . because we are militant against male authority".

I intentionally left out Tarter's two words "not simply" before the word "because" to show that the "not simply" does not NEGATE belief in "male" authority, but confirms it.

Joe, it's black and white and in print - "males" have authority that females militate against - and this is "feminism" in Miss Tarter's mind.

Anonymous said...

"Feminism is in the core of our hearts apart from the saving work of the shed blood of Christ, and not simply because we are militant against male authority, but primarily because we are opposed to the greatest authority of all—our Creator."

What is 'feminism'? Wanting the right to vote? That was considered militant feminism at one time. What is Miss Tarter's definition of feminism?

Would wanting the right to vote mean that the Christian suffragettes were against the authority of their Creator? Many thought so at the time.

The 'masculinists' are in sin for desiring and teaching male authority over women. It is at the core of their heart and they are usurping the authority of Christ in a woman's life. They are teaching the consequence of sin from Gen 3 as a command to live out. That is fleshly and not Christlike. He taught us servanthood, love and mutual submission.

Lydia

Anonymous said...

Dear Wade,

Your story of the abuse of Elizabeth Keckley brought to mind the story of the abuse of an evangelical woman missionary at the hands of soldiers.

This is from a book by Kathleen Norris: Ms. Norris quotes from an account by Mark Danner of a massacre that occurred in El Salvador in 1981. I will spare the grim part of the violation of these women:

"this girl had sung hymns, strange evangelical songs, and she had kept right on singing, even after they had done . . . . . and (they) shot her in the chest. She had lain there on La Cruz with the blood flowing from her chest, and had kept on singing -- a bit weaker than before, but still singing. And the soldiers, stupified, watched and pointed. Then they had grown tired of the game and shot her again, and she sang still, and THEIR WONDER BEGAN TO TURN T0 FEAR until finally they had unleashed their machetes and hacked through her neck. And at last the singing stopped. "

Can you see the similarity?

L's Gran

Frank (or Chip) said...

I am not ignoring your first example; I am simply astounded by your second. I have never heard of Miss Keckley, until now. What an amazing testimony of humanity!

I cannot wait to read more. I will be looking for the book.

CJ Allen said...

Again, Wade, thank you for picking back up your keyboard after a lengthy break. This is an excellent post.

To Mr. Blackmon: You wrote, "I think that anyone who believes that all women have to submit to the authority of all men at all times is a goofball (ie. women can't teach a language class in seminary, women can't serve in elected office)."

I would offer that many such people exist: in particular Scott Brown, of the SBC, very good friend of Paige Patterson, and frequent guest lecturer at SEBTS. His site is scottbrownonline.com. He has more than enough there to keep a person entertained or horrified, depending upon your mood. You can also check out Doug Phillips' blog. And Vision Forum's National Council for Family Integrated Churches. Which includes SBC darling, Voddie Baucham. All meet your "goofball" litmus test.

Back to Wade: As I read E. Keckly's writing, I couldn't help but "hear" the Patriarchists say, "but she should have submitted to her master's beatings as unto the Lord. Isn't that what Paul taught?"

Please keep exposing what is going on. That is the only way to put a stop to it. I appreciate very much your courage and commitment to the truth of Scripture.

Anonymous said...

Quiet courage in the face a abuse will shame the abuser. If leaders in the SBC are practicing a leadership that causes fear, then are they of God? I don't understand.

Anonymous said...

Miss Tarter reminds one of the female prison matron in the film,
"Iron Jawed Angels".

All bullies need their toadies. The Nazis used Jews as prison guards in the death camps.

The leadership will find women to do their bidding.

Is Ms. Tarter a toadie? Well, I put it out there for debate.

Anonymous said...

It's strange to me that Lydia owns almost every 5th or 6th comment in these comment streams on every post.

I think she is way too emotionally involved to make rational observations. This is also made apparent by the content of her comment, But I digress.

Lydia, I would recommend limiting your comments to only 20 per day and then go and tell some people about Jesus.

You might even tell some men!

I bet even Mohler the Calvinists has told someone about Jesus more recently than you.

Wade - Interesting post with good points to consider.

Rex Ray said...

To mud-thrower Anonymous,
The best and truest part of your comment was saying, “I digress”.

The old trite expression of saying someone’s time would be better spent in ‘doing something for the Lord’ is kin to Judas saying, this could be sold and given to the poor.

Between you and Lydia, I believe you would be the one with the whip. On a closer look, I believe you’ve already used it.

thatmom said...

Pastor Wade,

Thank you one again for boldly stating what is going on in the SBC. As was mentioned, Scott Brown and Voddie Baucham are having tremendous influence both within your denomination and outside of it, especially in homeschooling circles. In fact, Voddie is one of the most requested speakers for homeschooling conventions around the country. And through these conventions, their views are now being presented as mainstream and are polluting families who take them back into their own churches. There are a few small voices who are challenging them but we are labeled "white-washed feminists" and are maligned at every turn.

Thank you for speaking the truth, for honoring the Word of God over the teachings of men and for calling us all to be Bereans. The lack of discernment among so many grieves me but your stand has inspired me and others to continue pushing back against this madness.

Paul Burleson said...

Lydia,

Thanks for your comments. They are insightful, thoughtful and appreciated by this reader. You have an obviously sharp mind which is, along with your courage of convictions, an encouragement to me.

By the way, your willingness to signing your comments is appreciated too. All do not possess that measure of courage.

Brent Hobbs said...

Joe Blackmon is exactly right.

Rex Ray said...

Lydia,
You are right on in seeing that Miss Tarter’s affirmation of Palin as VP is hypocritical.

It is just as hypocritical as Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission in his saying in the Baptist Standard (September 29, 2008):

The SBC declares in the 2000 BFM statement that “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture” and a wife should “submit herself graciously” to her husband’s leadership. But those beliefs based on New Testament teachings, do not apply to women in secular leadership. Where the New Testament is silent, we’re silent. Where the New Testament speaks, we’re under its authority. The only thing that would disqualify Governor Palin from being governor or vice president, in my opinion, would be if her husband didn’t want her to do it.


WHAT! Palin is under the ‘control’ of her husband? She’s a puppet controlled by him? First Land says their interpretations of the Bible don’t apply to women in secular leadership, and then he says he believes they do.

In the same article, Margaret Poloma, research professor at the University of Akron, sums up the problem:

She calls the views of evangelicals who support women politicians but not women pastors a matter of “selective interpretation” of the Bible. The whole thing is contorted, but they really believe that.


I see blind, leaders of the blind building a house that men are superior to women. That house will fall because it’s built on the sand of egos believing a pastor must be male.

There is no one as blind as those who refuse to see.

Anonymous said...

Wade - I enjoy your blog. Please try and hear my comment a lot better than I am going to try and communicate it.

I feel like I am a conservative, normal Baptist like all the rest of us here :), but I must say that I actually enjoy Voddie and much of his message. If you listen to him, much of what he says is so true. For example, (and I paraphrase here) most parents today use the youth department as a baby sitting service...the youth ministers know more about the youth and their problems than their parents do...the youth minister is the one that kids are running to when they have a life issue and not the parents...the family is divided under the current program / age driven template most churches use...a family of five (for example) soon will be going to church in 3 or 4 different cars...they rarely worship together...etc...etc...etc...)

Broad brush, I know. For example, there are many stories of a youth minister being at the right place and at the right time for some wayward youth who perhaps didn't have a parent, etc etc etc...I understand this and I am thanfful for that as well.

That is also not to say that there isn't something in Voddie's view to perhaps pick apart. But there is also much truth to the examples given.

Unfortunately, most parents (and probably commenters to follow) don't see it like that because many are living right smack in the middle of it. No one wants to hear, much less admit, that what they are doing and how they are living and how they "do" church might be "wrong" or "unbiblical".

I truly do understand this defensiveness. It is difficult to hear some things. Pride is a terrible catalyst in so many ways.

In fact, I'm certain I would react the same way if someone told me I was wrong for making my kids worship with the family TOGETHER...and we all ride together to church in the same car...and we cultivate a relationship that makes them desire to share their life issues with me (the parent) instead of the youth minister (or anyone else).

I commented with a HUGE brush I know. But maybe a point can be grasped in there somewhere? :)

Thanks for "listening".

SL1M

Anonymous said...

L's Gran wrote about the massacre of an evangelical missionary:

"Your story of the abuse of Elizabeth Keckley brought to mind the story of the abuse of an evangelical woman missionary at the hands of soldiers.

This is from a book by Kathleen Norris: Ms. Norris quotes from an account by Mark Danner of a massacre that occurred in El Salvador in 1981. I will spare the grim part of the violation of these women:

"this girl had sung hymns, strange evangelical songs, and she had kept right on singing, even after they had done . . . . . and (they) shot her in the chest. She had lain there on La Cruz with the blood flowing from her chest, and had kept on singing -- a bit weaker than before, but still singing. And the soldiers, stupified, watched and pointed. Then they had grown tired of the game and shot her again, and she sang still, and THEIR WONDER BEGAN TO TURN T0 FEAR until finally they had unleashed their machetes and hacked through her neck. And at last the singing stopped. "

COMMENT: it is a terrible thing to silence ANY of God's missionaries. Does the method of silencing them really matter? Are you listening, SBC leaders? Once any kind of abuse begins, it will continue, until the people say 'enough' OR until the abusers become ashamed.

Joe Blackmon said...

Wade

I disagree. When she says "not because" I think she means what she says. Femminisim is, at the core, not about resistance to male authority but really because we are opposed to God's authority..

Again, let me add just in case anyone wishes to take my comment out of context and assume they know what I mean---I do not think that all women are required to submit to all men as their authroity. After reading some on my own last night I do see what some poeple have talked about regarding some in the SBC who would disagree with me. That's fine with me: they can be wrong if they want to.

Anonymous said...

Is the CBMW an advance army of conservative Christian resurgents or of DOMINIONISTS? This is just the advance group. If they succeed, you can imagine what will come next.

Joe White... said...

Wade,

Can you please help me out? How exactly does one sentence, written more than a year ago, by Miss Courtney Tarter become the blanket statement for SBC leaders and seminary Presidents?

Aren't you the one who says people should be able to speak for themselves, and that we should read what you actually wrote... not read into your words? This then is one of the worst examples I have seen in recent months of "guilt by association". The slanderous public comments you have made about Dr.s Moore, Patterson, and Mohler should be backed up with more than a hunch or an opinion.

I won't make any comments about the Keckley story as it should have been its own post. It has nothing as far as I can see to do with the Tarter post. It is just and ad hominum tactic.

Anonymous said...

Does this mean they're actually supporting TODD Palin as VP -potential president? If the wife is to submit to the husband in everything...

Susie

Pamela said...

"Feminism is in the core of our hearts apart from the saving work of the shed blood of Christ, and not simply because we are militant against male authority, but primarily because we are opposed to the greatest authority of all—our Creator."

The chick clearly is saying that feminism is (a) first being militant against male authority and (b) hatred of God's authority. She equates the two in this statement. They are one and the same.

I forgot who said that if anyone believed that they were stupid. There are pastors that teach this. I know one personally. I have not had that much contact with that congregation lately but it was very clear that all women must be submitted to a male authority figure. If the woman was married she submitted to her husband. If she was unmarried she went to one of the male church leaders. Basically a woman could not be trusted to do anything without permission and approval from some man. I have been asked several times to join that congregation. I thought to myself 'I'm not going to willing choose prison'. Jesus set me free from bondage. That will happen when hell freezes over. Some leaders really do believe this trash.

Miss Tarter must have been smoking something with quote 2. How in God's name does creating two gender represent THREE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD (Trinity)????? What is that sincerely? That makes absolutely no sense.

Anonymous said...

Wade,
Someone people might argue that you and your wife are more like the Presbyterian minister and his wife. Miss Tarter seems to be getting a beating because she stands with Biblical truth.

Reject the Enid Tyranny
Robert I Masters

Paul Burleson said...

Wade,

I could say about "masculism" exactly what Miss Courtney Tarter says concerning "feminism" in her article with the exception of having been a part of such philosophy which I have not. [I read her article and the next two segments on her blog]

I do believe there is an extreme view in feminism AND masculism that negates the truth of scripture.

The problem as I understand it is were we to believe and teach the correct meaning of the text of scripture regarding male/female relationships in Kingdom living there would be no grounds for either extreme in our philosophy of life. We would see that hierarchicalism is not to be part of the Kingdom as Jesus clearly said in Matt. 20:25-28 and Mark 10:42-45 and we would see that the serving spirit of Eph. 5:22 [and other places] would permeate both genders in relationships.

To negate hierarchicalism and to establish servanthood in both genders WOULD confuse, upset and enrage most of our culture. So be it. It WOULD, however, reflect Kingdom culture. That's our goal it seems to me.

[Of course so would loving people who disagree with my view and not shaming them, condemning them, or assigning labels as "heretical" or "non-Southern Baptist" to their differing viewpoint. Oh...that's the point you are making with each post isn't it.]

Dad

PastaKeith said...

Wade -

I don't normally comment on your posts, though I read lots of them.

I think Ms. Tater is trying to articulate the truth that she rebels against the authority of her husband, in her heart. Perhaps she is universalizing that when she says "male authority."

I don't read her as saying "all women must submit to all men." I just don't think that is what she intends, and I think it is important that we search for authorial intent here, not what we can 'make' her words say.

When i was in seminary, a wonderful brother in preaching class was giving a sermon about something. It was going well, until the man told a story about a fellow who took his dog out in the fishing boat. He had brought a few things on the boat with him, most notably, an axe. The dog wouldn't sit still, the story goes.... so he cut the dogs leg off (ew... thought I... this is a strange story.)

The story went on and on as the man continued to cut off the dog's remaining legs. After the story, the sermon rambled to it's conclusion.

As we gave sermon review, I said, "[Brother] (I cannot remember the brother's name), what were you thinking using that story? I have NO idea what you were even talking about after you said that!"

What's up with using the seamstresses story in this blog post? CBMW has never advocated spousal abuse, and in fact speaks against the cruel and domineering treatment of the husband. The use of this story is just... ghastly. It's abhorrent.

Some professor somewhere advocates wife beating? Whoever he is, he shouldn't have said that. That's dumb. No one thinks that, and if they do, they certainly don't represent the wider body of Christ.

It seems like some perspective is needed here. Drs. Mohler and Moore are good men. They love the Gospel, and they love their wives.

Surely, Surely you are not saying they promote the kind of treatment of women that is played out by this preacher in this story?

Say it ain't so.

(Scattered thoughts quickly typed.)
Keith

Lindon said...

FYI:

The Carl F.H. Henry Center for Theological understanding of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School is excited to announce that on October 9th, 2008 at 6.30 pm, it will host a Trinity Debate at the TEDS Chapel featuring Drs. Bruce Ware (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) and Wayne Grudem (Phoenix Seminary) versus Drs. Tom McCall (TEDS) and Keith Yandell (University of Wisconsin-Madison) on the question: “Do relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?”

Kevin Giles from his recent book, Jesus and the Father, page 42. The chapter is titled, “Contemporary Evangelicals and the Doctrine of the Trinity.” :

“Virtually every evangelical theologian who has written in support of the eternal subordination of the Son in function and authority is committed to the permanent subordination of women in the church and home. Because the subordination of women and the subordination of the Son are inextricably united in the minds of those with whom I am debating, getting them to consider honestly and openly what they are saying on the Trinity is almost impossible. Too much for them is at stake. Some of them have said to me quite openly, “We will never give way on the Trinity, because this would be the first step in giving way on our case for the subordination of women.” Professor Wayne Grudem is firmly of this opinion. He says the “most decisive factor” in the case for the permanent subordination of women is “a proper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity,” by which he means understanding the Trinity as hierarchically ordered so that the Son is bound to obey the Father. Nothing is more important “in the whole universe,” he says, than maintaining “the equality of being together with authority and submission” in the relationship between the Father and Son in the immanent Trinity.” (Grudem, Evangelical Feminism, 411 and n. 12; ibid., 429.)

Bill said...

If (as seems unlikely) Mrs. Palin becomes Vice President, do complementarians believe that her VP activities should be governed by her husband? For example, if required to break a tie in the Senate, and she is inclined to vote Yes, and her husband wants her to vote No, is she biblically bound to vote No? If she is sent to Libya on a diplomatic mission, but Todd prefers her to stay home that week to watch the kids, should she go to Libya, or is she breaking biblical law?

Anonymous said...

Hi Keith,

The preacher in Wade's story beat a woman physically.

Sheri Klouda received some pretty brutal treatment at certain hands.

Want to explain to me the difference between the two kinds of brutality? As a woman, I would rather have been physically beaten, than have my life's work taken from me, and my family's economic security put at risk.

We women are are little stronger than some men think we are. It will take more than a beating to kill our spirits.

L's Gran

Tom Parker said...

Joe:

Are you a one issue guy?

Mr. Masters:

Are you a one issue guy?

PastaKeith said...

I don't think any complementarian who truly understands what they [CBMW] are saying would say that.

Let em see if I can find a response to this from their 50 questions book:

Link: http://www.cbmw.org/Online-Books/Fifty-Crucial-Questions/Fifty-Crucial-Questions

undeer question 5: "Submission refers to a wife's divine calling to honor and affirm her husband's leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts. It is not an absolute surrender of her will. Rather, we speak of her disposition to yield to her husband's guidance and her inclination to follow his leadership. Christ is her absolute authority, not the husband. She submits "out of reverence for Christ" (Ephesians 5:21). The supreme authority of Christ qualifies the authority of her husband. She should never follow her husband into sin."

and then in question 8:
"We are not claiming to live without ambiguities. Neither are we saying that headship consists in a series of directives to the wife. Leadership is not synonymous with unilateral decision making. In fact, in a good marriage, leadership consists mainly in taking responsibility to establish a pattern of interaction that honors both husband and wife (and children) as a store of varied wisdom for family life. Headship bears the primary responsibility for the moral design and planning in the home, but the development of that design and plan will include the wife (who may be wiser and more intelligent). None of this is nullified by some ambiguities in the borderline cases of conflict."

I think that is fair, and un-domineering, don't you?

is this imperial tyrannical overlording?

I don't see it that way.

Joe Blackmon said...

Tom

Actually no I'm not. I'm a multiple issue guy over several books with a couple of crossover to big event books and an annual that comes out every year. You can also see me in the pages of Justice League. Furher, I used to have a book in the 70's-80's that they just relaunched called The Brave and The Bold where I team up with different characters every week.

Sincerly
The World's Greatest Detective

Anonymous said...

Mr Paul Burleson,
You said...
We would see that hierarchicalism is not to be part of the Kingdom as Jesus clearly said in Matt. 20:25-28 and Mark 10:42-45

But in his article on The Shack Ben Witherington clearly disagrees with Brandon who is a moderator on the The Shack blog. Now Mr Witherington is no fan of complementarianism!

What say you?

here is the link..please look for Brandon in the comments

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11840313&postID=1740835174424976263


Reject the Enid Tyranny
Robert i Masters

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"How in God's name does creating two gender represent THREE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD (Trinity)????? What is that sincerely? That makes absolutely no sense."

Pamela,

The idea here in reference to the trinity is to understand the relationship of the Father to the Son expressed by the Spirit of God. In the Husband/Wife relationship we have a similar loving complementary relationship enhanced by the expression of the Godhead through the Spirit.

"...a threefold cord is not quickly broken." (Ecc 4:12)

John said...

Wade,
I don’t think you and I are reading the same article. The paragraph before said,

“Recovering from feminism must first start with an embracing of the Gospel of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Only then will we see the roots severed because we will be clothed in the humility of Christ, who willingly submitted himself to the Father on our behalf. For older women it will mean embracing and modeling femininity, motherhood, and marriage in a Titus 2 way. For younger women it will mean knowing the godly women in our congregations better than we know the celebrities on late night television.”

She isn’t talking about women submitting blindly to male authority here—she is talking about biblical submission that starts with submitting to God. Then she said,

Feminist ideology is not simply relegated to the brash Gloria Steinem types, or even the female executive with the corner office. Rather, feminism rises up in ordinary women in our congregations, homes, and in the least obvious place, the mirror. Feminism is in the core of our hearts apart from the saving work of the shed blood of Christ, and not simply because we are militant against male authority, but primarily because we are opposed to the greatest authority of all—our Creator. The feminist is not some abstract “out there” woman. She is staring right at us every morning when we put on our make-up.

You seem so willing to be offended that you are not willing to read what she said. You are putting all of the focus on the phrase that followed “not simply” and ignoring the phrase following “but primarily.”

I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill!
John

Joe Blackmon said...

John,

Thank you. I was wondering if I was the only one who thought that.

Bob Cleveland said...

I think this comment stream would look a lot different if the prevailing attitude among men was the same sort of sacrificial attitude toward their wives and toward their homes, that Jesus showed toward His Church. As in giving Himself up for her. Completely self-sacrificial in attitude and in actions.

Come to think of it, that's how He told us we were to do it.

PastaKeith said...

hey bob - i totally agree with you. If that IS the attitude we are called to live by, does that make complementarian ideology wrong?

Besides... i think complementarians beleive that:
again, from 50 crucial question:
Question 9: Don't you think that stressing headship and submission gives impetus to the epidemic of wife abuse?

No. First, because we stress Christlike, sacrificial headship that keeps the good of the wife in view and regards her as a joint heir of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7); and we stress thoughtful submission that does not make the husband an absolute lord (see question 5). Second, we believe that wife abuse (and husband abuse) have some deep roots in the failure of parents to impart to their sons and daughters the meaning of true masculinity and true femininity. The confusions and frustrations of sexual identity often explode in harmful behaviors. The solution to this is not to minimize gender differences (which will then break out in menacing ways), but to teach in the home and the church how true manhood and womanhood express themselves in the loving and complementary roles of marriage.

Wade Burleson said...

Pastakieth,

Thanks for your reading and I appreciate your comment.

Miss Tarter is single.

The word "male" cannot mean her husband.

Wade Burleson said...

Robert Masters,

I love your sign off!

The congregation I am privileged to shepherd would get a good laugh at that one.

:)

Anonymous said...

Dear Wade,

Remember those tactics of the 'hostile takeover', how they kind of 'came in through the back door'?

Now, Wade, doesn't this remind you of:
" He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a theif and a robber." John 10:1

Don't worry Wade. The sheep will know His voice. We 'ewe's ain't as dumb as the robbers think we are. :) The Good Shepherd will not let his sheep be harmed without intervening. :)

L's Gran

PastaKeith said...

Wade - thanks for paying attention to my little screed.

Interesting that she is single. Could she be talking about her pastor? the leadership in her church? maybe she is just expressing the fact that as a female, she will one day, should God so will have to submit to the male authority of her (male) husband?

Isn't there a way to read this that keeps it from being a conspiracy to crush women? maybe?

Karen in OK said...

I admit I don't understand this post in light of Bro. Wade's post of Sept 30 in which he said that he agrees with Southern's (Mohler's and employees) views on this issue.
It SEEMS like Bro. Wade greatly disagrees, which is his right, but every so often after greatly criticizing this view, he throws in a statement that he actually agrees with this view.

Bro. Wade, are you a complementarian because you think that is what the Bible teaches or because that is what the culture around you demands and you wish ultimately to overturn that view? Or something else?

The minister who beat the woman was horribly, sinfully wrong. It has nothing to do, though, with the views of modern complementarians.

Calling Ms. Tarter a toady and a hypocrite is not useful in the comment stream. Maybe her view is internally consistent, whehter or not it is correct.

Wade Burleson said...

If everyone will please give me a one time exception to my usual rule of keeping comments brief, I would like to respond to the three or four men in this comment stream who cannot understand the connection between the seamstress story and those who advocate the subordination of women to men.

The teaching that women are by gender and creation called to be subordinate to men is anti-Scriptural and anti-Christian. Notice, we are not speaking of a wife voluntarily submitting to her husband or pastoral "authority." The teaching that is anti-Scriptural and anti-Christian is that the female gender is eternally subordinate to the male gender.

This teaching of eternal subordination of women, the inherent superiority of man's authority, and the corresponding belief that the woman's place is subservient to the man - she can never teach him, never rule over him, never direct him, never boss him, never lead him - is growing throughout our Convention among some in leadership. For instance, those who receive Southwestern Theological's Journal for this fall will find it is entitled "Recovery Biblical Womanhood" and has articles on how a woman is to dress when her husband goes before a pulpit committee, how she is to have a quiet and submissive spirit and allow her husband to speak for her, and all the "rules" that go with the role of a woman being subordinate to the man - couched in language of the husband and wife relationship, or whenever possible the language of "pastoral authority." But the real belief, as so eloquently written by Miss Tarter, is in "male" authority, and to militate against "male" authority is to rebel against "God's authority."

There are, however, two problems when you try to take on this bizarre view of women in the SBC. First, SBC leaders who are promoting it will try to spin it and say it is you are seeking women to become "pastors" or you don't believe in "wives submitting to their husbands." I have no problem cooperating with conservative evangelicals who believe the Bible contains no prohibition against women pastors, though I myself disagree with them, because I see this as an issue that should never divide evangelicals. However, men like Robert Masters in our comment stream and those he admires define evangelicalism in terms of one's view on women pastors. That, in my opinion, is absurd.

Second, the only way you can ever help Southern Baptists connect the dots to show them the absurdity of this "male" authority belief system is to illustrate the consequences of this belief were it to be held in a culture that is different from our 21st Century Southern Baptist Culture.

The 19th Century Southern slave culture, where "evangelical" preachers would yank slave mothers from children, separate slave wives from slave husbands, and beat non-compliant slaves is a great culture to follow the logic. There are people in this comment stream who are saying, "NOBODY BUT GOOFBALLS WOULD EVER CONDONE THE BEATING OF A WOMAN."

Read history. The beating of slaves was not only condoned in the Southern culture of our forefathers - it was expected when a slave rebelled against the "authority" of the master. The patriarch of the family (the male) was the master. All slaves obeyed him because of his inherent "authority." To rebel against this authority brough the rod of correction. Those who dared disagreed with the male (masta) authority were beaten mercilessly for "their good."

Fast forward to the 21st Century. We don't have slaves. But we have women. We don't have slaves teaching Hebrew in the SBC. But we had women. We don't have slaves at the SBC IMB in leadership positions. But we had women. We don't have slaves serving as chaplains. But we had women.

I use the past tense verb "had" because we no longer have them.

Why?

Because someone in SBC leadership said, "No woman shall have authority over a man."

The beating that African-American seamstress took for her "rebelling" against male authority is different from the beatings SBC Hebrew Professor Sheri Klouda, IMB Vice-President Wendy Norvelle, and a host of other SBC women in leadership positions have taken only in the kind of whip used.

I, for one, see the connection clearly. Maybe it is because I know the SBC ladies who have experienced the full effects of implementing the "male" authority viewpoint in SBC agencies.

I have sworn to not stand by silently while it happens, I plan on continuing to keep my vow.

Joe Blackmon said...

"Isn't there a way to read this that keeps it from being a conspiracy to crush women? maybe?" It depends on who you ask, I think. Some people want to see a conspiracy and will say "No". Other people recognize the truth of the matter and will realize that this does not represent the conspiracy others say it does.

I predict that those looking for the conspiracy should simply be patient and wait---it appears the effort to stop the rightward drift of the SBC may in fact be working and they'll be able to get it going back in the leftward direction.

Mike Greiner said...

Wow.

The flaw in all of this is misreading of Tartar's original statement.

No matter how we twist it, the general statement that feminism resents male authority does not equal her saying, "I believe that all women should be submissive to all males."

What does she mean then? Well, I don't think it takes a huge leap to realize that quite a few feminists are stridently anti-male in their approach to life, and, stridently anti God. I think that was her point. To read more in, no matter how eloquent the verbage is is not sensical.

so, my suggestion to the author of this blog. you need to start over. Set aside all the red herrings of stories of awful men who beat slaves (or own slaves for that matter!), and have an honest interaction with the text.

God created two sexes (gender is not the right word to use there, by the way). They are different. they interact uniquely. That needs to be wrestled with. To accuse all who say so of being slave owners, slave beaters, and guilty of wanting to put all women under the authority of all men is . . . silly and unfair.

Thank you. And have a nice day.

Wade Burleson said...

Joe Blackmon,

With your last comment, you find my wholehearted agreement.

Wade Burleson said...

Mike Greiner,

I am having a nice day, thanks for your blessings. I also have gently declined your suggestion to start over.

Wade

Paul Burleson said...

Wade,

As to the "hierarchical" [even the complimentarian level of it] verses the "egalitarian" view of gender relationships [even in the church level of it] we must remember, it seems to me, what Dr. Leon McBeth said about ordaining women back in 1979 holds true for this particular debate too and I quote....

“If Southern Baptists wanted to arrive at an official position on ordination of women, it is doubtful they could do so. Southern Baptists accept no ultimate authority this side of the Bible and the lordship of Christ. But those who accept the Bible as the authoritative Word of God may yet disagree about its interpretation. Southern Baptists have no official creed or list of accepted doctrines and practices to which all must subscribe. The Southern Baptist Convention is a voluntary body made up of elected representatives (messengers) from churches that voluntarily cooperate in missions, evangelism, and Christian education. The Convention cannot speak officially for the churches; neither can the churches speak for the Convention.
In 1925 and again in 1963 the Convention voted to adopt a doctrinal statement of “Baptist Faith and Message.” However, this is a confession of faith and not an official creed. It was designed as a statement of what a group of Baptists believe and practice at a given time in our history. In no way can it replace or supplement the authority of the Bible, nor was it intended.'

'This means that any Southern Baptist individual or group has perfect freedom, under the lordship of Christ and their liberty to interpret Scripture, to favor or oppose the ordination of women as they feel the facts warrant. However, such individuals and groups have no freedom to impose their views and practices upon all Southern Baptists or to announce their preference as “the” Southern Baptist position.'

'Ordainers and non-ordainers can and should be in full fellowship among us.”

This being correct, she [Miss Tarter] can say whatever and I can take what she says to task without it being an evil thing to do. All the while being civil about it.

You have set this standard. I could wish all commenters would follow suit.

Wade Burleson said...

Dad,

It's odd how our thoughts are often the same, though separated by geography.

I complimented Miss Tarter in my previous post. She is articulate, well-spoken and I'm proud to have her as a Southern Baptist.

I simply disagree with her views that a woman is to be subordinate to a man.

Yet, as strange as it might sound, if the majority of our Convention were seeking to remove Miss Tarter from leadership positions, or try to allege she was not a true "Southern Baptist," or sought to compel her to believe in the equality of men and women, then I would jump to Miss Tarter's defense.

The issue for me is the ability for Southern Baptists to disagree and not be removed from leadership positions, the missionary field, or trustee service for disagreeing.

Bottom line, the demand for conformity on this issue - and others - puts ink in my pen (or words on my screen).

:)

Wade Burleson said...

No apology needed!

Anonymous said...

"God created two sexes (gender is not the right word to use there, by the way). They are different. they interact uniquely. That needs to be wrestled with. "

Besides the obvious biological/physical differences that we also find in animals, would you mind elaborating on other differences between men and women that God makes clear in scripture that are not a result of the Fall, the culture or pop psychology? Specifically intellectual, psychological or emotional differences. Does God speak to such purposeful created differences in gender? I sincerely would like to know what is cultural and what is scriptural.

Lydia (the blog hog) :o)

debbiekaufman said...

Some of these comments are troubling for this Christian woman to read. Mike: You are talking about Christian women when you write that those of use who do not believe in male hierarchy are anti-male. That is simply not true. I think Lydia speaks for me the best. I think her comments are very insightful and show more Christian grace than some of the men on this thread who are demonstrating just why I am against men having authority over women.

peter lumpkins said...

Wade,

I followed your links but like our Joe, I find your interpretation of Miss Tarter somewhat skewed. I read her blog--scanned every post, in fact--and amazingly she says little about this issue, if one considers her entire file. But what she does say holds more sophistication than you allow, Wade.

First, your tampering with her comment, to say the least, makes her say something she does not. You write: "Feminism, according to SBC seminary trained Cortney Tarter, is opposition to male authority and God's authority."

And later in the comment thread, you respond to Joe: "Feminism is resistance to the male's authority."

Then once again: "..."males" have authority that females militate against - and this is "feminism" in Miss Tarter's mind." This continual changing makes me dizzy :^)

Plain and simple, Tarter does not say '"males" have authority that females militate against - and this is "feminism"' To the contrary, the militancy to which she is referring is the "Gloria Steinem" model.

Thus, she says, in effect, "feminism is not simply the militancy of the Gloria Steinem agenda, the agenda I once embraced; rather, feminism is primarily militancy against God."

Indeed this squares exactly with her view that feminism is at the core of our fallenness, a particularly distorted view of the way God made us. In essence, feminism is rebellion not against males in particular but a depraved, fallen and consequently rebellious spirit in general, especially a rebellious spirit against God.

I would think, given your Calvinism, you'd be especailly appreciative of her thorough understanding of total depravity.

Even more, Wade, you once again trip over your own feet when charge those like Tarter with heresy, and that without a shread of evidence: "Pointing to the Trinity in order to establish the "eternal subordination" of the female to the male is a new and growing phenomenon. Yet this heretical teaching is taking hold among some in our Southern Baptist Convention, particularly at our seminaries, as a theological basis to keep women eternally subordinate to men."

First, Wade, could you please inform us what is meant by '"eternal subordination" of the female to the male'? "Eternal subordination"? Who is saying such? Where? Could we please have some documentation of this?

Furthermore, what in the world does '"eternal subordination" of the female to the male' even mean? Are these SBC leaders teaching that my wife will be subordinate to me in Heaven? I think the Mormon Church has a doctrine similar to such. You mentioned Drs. Mohler, Patterson, Russell and others. Do these men teach "eternal subordination" of female to male in Heaven? A chapter/verse would be nice.

Thirdly, while you only alluded before to "acting" like a cult and mentioning "semi-Arianism" now you explicitly charge these men with heresy, which, for me is a very serious accusation. In doing such, you're assuming without argument subordinationism is heresy. However, two quick points (perhaps already made in the other thread).

First, theologians distinguish between subordination of *essence* and subordination of *function*. While the former has been thoroughly rejected by orthodoxy through the centuries, the latter has not. Indeed, most evangelicals have no reservation in affirming the latter. Know I am willing to be corrected, however. Which evangelical theologians, Wade, reject *functional* subordination?

Secondly, Wade, the aside, the BF&M says absolutely nothing about the theological issue of subordinationism. It affirms the orthodox understanding of the Trinity with which every SBC theologian adheres. If that is so, from whence comes the gunpowder to shoot up Dodge?

You have made it very clear on your blog that if the BF&M doesn't address the issue, then Conservative, Bible-believing evangelicals ought to be able to disagree and still be accepted.

Well, my brother, the BF&M doesn't state how we are to "formulate" the ways we view the eternal relations between the Persons of the Triune Godhead. Why you then would call them heretics is fantastic, Wade--not to mention inconsistent with what you have publicly advocated on this blog.

Wishing you a nice day. With that, I am...

Peter

P.S. If you cannot understand my post, my feelings won't be hurt, I assure :^)

PastaKeith said...

Debbiekaufman - i know mike well enough to say that is he is speaking of the feminism that is stridently anit-male, not the idea that women should vote, own property or be treated as human beings created in the image of God.

Wade -

i too am troubled by the discussion of the eternal subordination of the female to the male. I'm not hearing that anywhere.

I do hear of the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father, which I think finds its biblical root in 1 Cor 15:24, the Son presenting the kingdom to the Father. This presents no major theological trouble to me.

Is there a place where the doctrine of eternal subordination of females is being taught?

Tom Parker said...

Peter:

I certainly did not know what you were trying to say. Could you say it again, but use less words.

Joe Blackmon said...

Wade

Yeah, I figured I could get an AMEN out of you with that last comment. I'll bet you a box of stale communion wafers that once the "Mainstream Ressurgance" (*) happens you can be sure it'll be less than 10 years before the only difference between the SBC and the PC-USA is exchatology and baptism of infants.

(*) I am copywriting this phrase so if it gets used after the convention swings back towards the left I want a nickel for everytime someone says it, a quarter for even time it's used in print, and two cents for every blog post thsat uses it.

Corrie said...

So, if men resist male authority, then they are feminists?

After all, our world is FULL of men who cannot submit to authority. And it isn't just in secular places, it is in the Church. I see men all the time who are not submissive and OBEDIENT (the Bible tells us to obey our elders) to authority.

Also, there is nothing about the creation of man and woman that tells me anything about the Trinity except that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were fully and equally involved in the creation of this world. The more I study the Trinity, the more I see how batty these kinds of teachings really are. They would have us believe that Jesus isn't really fully God, even though He repeatedly said that He is "I Am" and that He and the Father are the same- if you have seen Him, you have seen the Father.

Jesus has the same will as the Father because He IS God. There is no way that the two of them could have a different opinion on anything. Jesus told His disciples that they should rejoice that He is returning to the Father since then His full glory will be restored and His humiliation ended.

How in the world do we begin to think that a sinful man and a sinful woman represent God the Father and Jesus the Son?

And why isn't all authority on this earth given to the wife if she is the representation of Christ? After all, Jesus has been given all authority over creation.

The one thing that seems to stand out is ego. In John 14, Jesus spoke of how His disciples would do greater (in scope) miracles/works than He, Himself, has done.

Those who are so hung up on their own alleged importance and authority could never utter such humble words.

Wade Burleson said...

Peter,

This comment is clearer than your other comments except for the first, first, furthermore, thirdly, first, secondly qualifiers. Talk about dizzy.

:)

So, let me try to respond - your style.

First, no tampering at all. Simple English.

First, eternal subordination of the female to the male simply means that males have inherent authority over females - God made them that way.

Furthermore, eternal subordination of the female to the male at least means a woman can't teach a man Hebrew; whether it means a woman can't teach you in heaven you will have to ask those who advocate it.

Thirdly, eternal subordination of the Trinity is heresy according to the Nicaen counsel.

First, "functional" subordination is a nice way of saying subordinate in essence. There is no subordination in the Trinity. There is eternal equality in the Trinity - different roles but not functional "subordination."

Secondly, please read my comment above. Miss Tarter is welcome in the SBC with her views that women should be subordinate to men, and unlike the Baptist Identity crowd, we won't even challenge her Baptist credentials.

Blessings to you too, my brother,

:)

Corrie said...

"The old trite expression of saying someone’s time would be better spent in ‘doing something for the Lord’ is kin to Judas saying, this could be sold and given to the poor."

Rex-Ray,

Touche!

The cowardice of "anonymous" is absolutely astounding. And these are the kind of men and their bad attitudes and their cowardly tacts that many need to stand up to and "rebel" against.

Paul Burleson said...

Perhaps it's an "old guy" thing but I do want all to know [no one has said anything yet and I just caught it] that I do know the difference between "complimentarian" and "comlementarian." Sorry and thanks for a non-corrective [indulgence] attitude. :)

Corrie said...

SL1M,

While Voddie may have some good things to say about youth ministry and how parents are dropping the ball, his cure is as toxic as any poison.

There are many who are saying the same thing but don't need to offer an extreme and poisonous cure and then label it as "biblical".

Wade Burleson said...

Joe Blackmon,

Just a little hint.

Before you copyright "Mainstream Ressurgance (sic)" learn how to spell it.

Blessings,

Wade

Corrie said...

Why is it called "feminism" when one rebels against God's authority? Why isn't it called "masculinism" since men seem to rebel against God's authority as often as women?

I don't get the moniker of "feminism", it makes no sense unless one has an agenda to peddle.

I think we should just label it how the Bible labels it (I know, a novel idea): sin, stiff-necked rebelliousness, pride, etc.

Wade Burleson said...

Dad,

I hand out passes to nice guys and ticket bullies.

:)

Wade Burleson said...

Corrie,

I believe you are way too logical for our comment stream.

:)

Good question by the way.

wade

Joe Blackmon said...

Wade

Thanc u. I will tri to spell bettur wen I leve a comment from now on.

Keep it real.

Joe Blackmon said...

Corrie

"The cowardice of "anonymous" is absolutely astounding."

I agree. Anybody that can't own up to their own opinions is pretty silly. Even if I disagree with someone I can at least respect some who is man or woman enough to say "This is what I think. There. I said it." and attach there name to it. I mean, I know what I believe and why (and it has nothing to do with anything that comes out of Paige Patterson's mouth) but I'm not nearly goofy enough to believe that when I get to heaven I'm going to find out that I was right about everything.

Wade Burleson said...

Amen Joe.

Well said.

Wade

Corrie said...

"Isn't there a way to read this that keeps it from being a conspiracy to crush women? maybe?"

Interesting. Wade clearly outlined some of the other happenings amongst these male leaders. How about the firing of Klouda for one?

What was that? How are we supposed to read these things when their actions do not have the gracious spin that you have put forth?

Anonymous said...

These words bother me most of all: “For my part, I wish Miss Tarter was more like Elizabeth Keckley.” That statement could easily be interpreted as Wade hoping to see Courtney Tarter beaten like the slave girl, bloody, naked, injured.

As ludicrous as that assumption would be, it’s not far from what Wade has done with Tarter’s definition of feminism. Wade has taken of her definition of feminism as proof that there exists within the SBC a concerted effort to promote and enforce male dominance in every corner of society at large. Another ludicrous assumption.

Anonymous said...

Just read this post.

First: If any man treated either my wife or my daughters--for any reason, right or wrong--the way the minister treated the woman recounting her experiences, that man would live out the rest of that day with great difficulty!

Secondly: The New Testament teaches that wives are to submit to the leadership of their husbands (not women to men) because Adam was not deceived but knowingly and blatantly sinned against God--and was punished the greater for it by being assigned the horrible responsibility of never leading his family wrongly again but answering for it at Judgment. The wife's role actually is the easier of the two, in that sense, in my opinion. If SBC leaders are suggesting otherwise, they incorrectly understand their Bibles and either should change their stances or be removed from their positions (in the case of those mentioned, I would vote for the latter by now).


David

Wade Burleson said...

Anonymous Above David,

Sign your name.

Or, could it be the stupidity of your comment embarrasses you.

The Bible tells me to not answer a fool in his folly, so I'll be silent.

Had your slam been against someone else, it would be removed. Because it is against me, it remains.

Get some courage of your convictions and sign your name.

Anonymous said...

For the record: I love men. Many are my brothers in Christ, including my husband who was the one who initiated the study that got us on the road to being Bereans about the increasingly shrill teaching on gender in churches. He thought it was dividing the Body and elevating men beyond their equal place as depraved sinners saved by grace such as we all are.

I have worked with many men and had quite a few work for me. All are my colleagues and friends.

Here is why I question the quotes from CBMW given here. Their teaching is not consistent and it becomes confusing for many.

For example, this is John Piper writing (for CBMW) about women who have men reporting to them in the workplace...yes, the workplace:

"A drill sergeant is the essence of directive leadership. On the other hand non-directive leadership is much closer to entreaty and suggestion. A good example of non-directive leadership is when Abigail talked David out of killing Nabal (1 Samuel 25:23-35). She was totally successful in guiding David's behavior but did it in a very non-directive way.

My principle then is this: To the degree that a woman's leadership of man is personal it needs to be non-directive. And to the degree that it is directive it needs to be impersonal. To the degree that a woman consistently offers directive, personal leadership to a man, to that degree will his God-given manhood - his sense of responsibility in the relationship - be compromised. What's at stake every time a man and a woman relate to each other is not merely competence (that is very naive), but also whether God-given manhood and womanhood are affirmed in the dynamics of the relationship.

http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Sermons/Affirming-the-Goodness-of-Manhood-and-Womanhood-in-All-of-Life

Perhaps you can explain to me how a woman CEO or even VP can have anything other than a 'personal and directive' relationship with her male direct reports? How does that dimish the male direct report's 'responsiblity' in that relationship since he is responsible to her as his boss?

How can Palin do her job if she follows this teaching? She can't. She can only use 'suggestion' and 'entreaty'.

Are we starting to understand why Miss Tarter WAS talking about women submitting to men in general?

Lydia

BTW: I appreciate the dialogue here...even the rebukes. It is iron sharpening iron and I am honored to be allowed to comment here (too much, I admit). I find this blog has been a bit of manna. We were starting to think we were alone here in the land of patriarchy. Even asking questions was seen as being heretical, liberal or 'feminist'. I am so honored that Wade allows discussion free from that sort of mind numbing sheep beating.

Anonymous said...

mzvujgAnd so it goes.

Miss Tarter buys into the "guy way" of seeing the world: someone HAS to be the boss and in charge.

Odd thing is, I see just the opposite taught by Jesus.

Instead of pastoral authority, I see Him teaching the pastors to be servants. (Not to be confused with servant leaders.) Nope. No such "authority". Just servants.

I see Paul teach husbands to love sacrificially. (Nope, not to be servant leaders.) To be self sacrificial is most assuredly NOT to be in authority.

When pastors and husbands do these things, churches and wives ARE to respond with love and respect and will be willing to follow.

It is not rebelling against male authority, or against one's own husband, or against God to refuse to bow before authoritarianism.

It is Biblical.

And no, I am not a radical feminist. I stand with Russell Moore in deploring the number of children abandoned by both parents so the family can own more stuff.

I stand firmly with the anti-feminism crowd in proclaiming that being a homemaker and a mother IS equal to and as important as any career outside the home. I also agree with them that the family, the church, the nation, and indeed the world is better served by women who voluntarily make that choice than it can ever be by women in the workforce. (Yes, I AM a dinosaur, I know! LOL)

But note I said women who VOLUNTARILY choose that role. That does not mean I believe ANYONE has a right to demand a woman make that choice, or submit to male authority.

And it constantly amazes and angers me that those who proclaim to follow a God that voluntarily laid aside the rank and privileges due the Godhead to walk on this sod as a human being, and to suffer and die for the sake of human beings turn around and try to set up a system of hierarchy.
(In the church, in the nation, in the family.)

Didn't we learn ANYTHING from Jesus?

Linda

Anonymous said...

"The Bible tells me to not answer a fool in his folly, so I'll be silent."

Silent?

Anonymous Above David

Anonymous said...

Wade ,
For the record
you said....
However, men like Robert Masters in our comment stream and those he admires define evangelicalism in terms of one's view on women pastors.

Actually I try to use the more narrow defintion for myself....Reformed Baptist Rob.
Egalitarianism is only one of the issues for this choice
What Iam saying is that I dont try to define evangelicalism.


Secondly I dont believe that all women have to obey all males all the time...just to clarify.
I dont see that anywhere in Miss Tarters writings either!


Reject the Enid Tyranny
Robert I Masters

Debbie Kaufman said...

Does the New Testament say this? Or has it been wrongly divided with subheadings in the translations that it has been misinterpreted?

What is the definition of submission to those who believe in wives submitting? I think reading just proof texts is a mistake and leads to gross misinterpretations that are handed down from generation to generation.

Think about this, surveys have shown repeatedly that illiteracy of the Bible is the worst problem we have in churches today. And that is among Christian men and women.

Corrie said...

Thank you, Wade. It must be the smell of cinnamon, cloves and nutmeg that are aiding my mind, today! I am making pumpkin bars for our small group in the midst of homeschooling my children and laundry. :-)

Was Miss Courtney Tarter a feminist of the Goria Steinem stripe? Is there anyone who could provide that information for me so I can see just what kind of "feminist" she used to be?

I have been frequently labeled as a feminist and I am a born again believer, stay at home mother of 10 children, who homeschools, believes in wifely submission and that elders, in the church, should be male, etc.

So, I am a little wary when people say that they used to be "feminists" since it seems I am considered to be a feminist by so many on the far right of the equation.

Unless a woman is a Voddie Baucham/Doug Phillips model, she is a feminist in my experience.

Was Tarter the kind of "feminist" like I am (women should vote, women should have an active role in the Church not just in the Church's Kitchen or Nursery) or was she truly the radical, bra-burning feminazi who hates men and who hates all male authority?

Joe Blackmon said...

"Think about this, surveys have shown repeatedly that illiteracy of the Bible is the worst problem we have in churches today. And that is among Christian men and women."

To paraphrase an old TV commercial:
"True, girl. True."

Corrie said...

Mr Masters,

You say that you do not believe that all women have to obey all men.

Can a woman ever be over a man in "rank"? Can a woman teach a man something concerning Scripture without her presuming some sort of authority over him?

Tim Bayly stated that he would gnash his teeth if a female police officer exercised authority over him but he is in support of Sarah Palin because she is pro-life. Maybe female police officers are okay as long as they are pro-life? I don't know but I do know that the inconsistencies in the complementarian position abound and it makes it hard to get a firm grasp on just what comps believe.

Anonymous said...

Wade:

If your reference is to this David (me; as I indicated, I just had read this blog entry before posting a comment--and have not read the thread and do not know whether or not other Davids have posted here): I will choose to remain anonymous, have posted comments at this site and even edited remarks of yours--with your thanks--since you started it a couple of years ago, and have emailed you a few times as well. In case your reference is to me, neither I nor my entry are "stupid"--and my posting is not at all meant as a "slam" against you or this posting. If/when I intend to insult or incite you, you will know it more clearly, brother.

If I am not the David you mean, disregard the above. But be more careful?


David

Anonymous said...

Dear Wade,

You wrote:

"The issue for me is the ability for Southern Baptists to disagree and not be removed from leadership positions, the missionary field, or trustee service for disagreeing. "

My comment: The leadership cannot have it both ways. They cannot ask that we not look into their hearts while they behave towards others in the inhumane ways you have described.

They refuse to own their own behavior. So, in order to keep in power, they will need to hush people up or to create fear by attempting to punish the outspoken. All the while, they seek to place organizations and people in power who are loyal to them. I'm sure many fine people have been replaced, or simply felt that they had leave.

If leadership refuse to own their own behavior and their 'followers' who speak in their support always allude to how much those leaders love the Gospel, then,
WHAT A DISCONNECT !!!!!

L's Gran

Tom Parker said...

Corrie:

The complementarian position seems to be twisted to fit what those that hold that view believe and too many appear to be hypocritical.

I also think many more women are going to have to make their voices heard like you are doing, but they must be prepared to deal with the likes of Mr. Masters.

Mike Greiner said...

Dear Lydia,
Explain the differences between the sexes? Explain how they are more than cultural? Really? You really think the differences are due to the fall?

My dear lady, have you no mother? Have you no father? My, my, what do they teach in school these days.

Wade, I knew you'd decline. Your muddy water serves your purposes better.

What has become of truth among these bloggers?

Wade Burleson said...

David,

My apologies. I should have been clearer. It twas not your comment that is offensive - it is the Anonymous Comment Above Your Comment.

Sorry for the confusion and next time I will try to articulate better in writing to which comment I refer.

Wade Burleson said...

Mike Greiner,

Lydia asked this question: Besides the obvious biological/physical differences that we also find in animals, would you mind elaborating on other differences between men and women that God makes clear in scripture that are not a result of the Fall, the culture or pop psychology?

You answered this way: My dear lady, have you no mother? Have you no father? My, my, what do they teach in school these days.

Mike, not only did you not answer Lydias question, you used condescension and sarcasm in responding.

You may not agree with Lydia, but I think Lydia deserves more from a 40 year old married Southern Baptist pastor.

From a fellow 40 something Southern Baptist pastor.

In His Grace,

wade

Mike Greiner said...

Masculinity and Femininity are far beyond the mere biological within humanity.

The Lord is Groom, the Church is the Bride, and all history a romance and a love story.

Oh what a cold splash in the face eternity will be to the ardent feminist when, thinking she has freed herself (or himself) from the cruel bonds of "gender" distinction on the earth, awakes to find that eternity is more like a dance with a leading man and a woman in sync than like the rabid demanding of coequal power of the feminist religion.

War between the sexes? far from it. We dance.

Anonymous said...

Corrie,
Thanks for the fair questions!
You asked....
Can a woman ever be over a man in "rank"

Yes in non-covenanted areas ie outside of the home and church!


You asked....
Can a woman teach a man something concerning Scripture without her presuming some sort of authority over him?
Sure I could learn a Scriptural truth from you here on this blog.


Tim will have to speak for Tim Bayly.


Reject the Enid Tyranny
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

"Dear Lydia,
Explain the differences between the sexes? Explain how they are more than cultural? Really? You really think the differences are due to the fall?

My dear lady, have you no mother? Have you no father? My, my, what do they teach in school these days."

Mike, seriously. I SAID besides the OBVIOUS physical/biological differences.

Think about it. Is it taught in scripture that bearing children makes women more emotional? More verbal? Less wise? Less intellectual?

Does scripture teach that all women for all time are more easily decieved than men. Does it teach that ALL men for all time will blame women for their sinful behavior? Does scripture teach that women do NOT want to be respected by men? Or that men do NOT want to be loved by women?

How much of what we believe about the NON PHYSICAL differences between men and women has been culturally induced as a result of the fall.

Think of how women have been perceived throughout history. Not just since the 60's in America which is about as far back as CBMW goes. Most societies were Patriarchal whre women were considered property. The Talmud teaches that a woman's voice is lewd and filthy.

But your response is why it is so hard to have these discussions. Even asking questions is considered ridiculous by too many. And yes, I had a mother. I was not talking about BIOLOGICAL differences. But emotional, psychological and intellectual differences.

What does scripture teach about these differences?

Lydia

Mike Greiner said...

Wade, I'm not a Southern Baptist Pastor.

And I did answer her.

My point was this: presenting an argument for the differences between the sexes is not worth my time. If they are not obvious, then . . . I'm wasting my time on the comment.

as for the term, "My dear lady," that seems to me like a nice way to address her.

as for sarcasm, is that in itself always bad? God used it. Paul used it. It can be a very efficient way to make a point --if one can not be offended and catch the meaning.

So Wade, sit up and pay attention.

Continue having a good day.

Anonymous said...

"The Lord is Groom, the Church is the Bride, and all history a romance and a love story."

Uh, you do know that YOU are being described as a 'Bride', too. :o)

Not a real 'masculine' way to describe the guys in the Body, eh? (wink)

Anonymous said...

My apologies, too, Wade. I'm assuming you still are able to determine--via software employed--the origin of guests visiting this blogsite, as other popular site owners do (aside from you, I really don't care whether or not anyone else knows who I am; it's your "house" we've all come to visit). Again, if ever I intend to slam you publicly, I'll sign my entire name after doing so; it'd only be fair. ;-))

The anonymous poster above my initial post says "easily"--but anyone who knows/virtually knows you from this blogsite understands that you NEVER could mean what he suggests. Mr. Anonymous Poster--whoever he is--either is ill informed, illogical, or an inciter. His second post says "inciter."


David

Mike Greiner said...

Lydia, my comment regarding your parents was not biological either.

Now, as for your response to me, it seems you are loading it with many arguments that I did not even mention. I'm not sure who you are arguing with, but clearly it is not me.

Let's review. My comment was that Wade, the dear blogger, began this long and winded thread with a strange misinterpretation of someone else's words, associated with a tragic story of an abused slave and some sort of association of those ideas with Al Mohler (odd, I know). My suggestion was that he start over so that he could make a bit more logical sense.

I also pointed out that men and women were created differently by God.

Now, you have inserted all this mumbo jumbo about emotions, and intellect, blah, blah, blah. I didn't mention any of those specifics.

Now, if you are saying that the differences between the sexes fall into two categories 1) biological and 2) results of the fall, I am saying that position is one I disagree with, but it is tedious to answer.


The simple question, had you know mother nor father was the answer. Did you not grow up with masculine and feminine and see the differences for yourself?

your answer is clearly that you didn't. If you'd really like to have this conversation with me (and I don't think you do, you are rather seeking the upper hand on a comment section of blog post), the comment section of blog post is not the place.

But if that is your position, and we are talking about history, may I say the you hold the position of the feminist movement of the 60's and 70's, one that even they have left behind.

My dear Lady, have a good day. (You too Wade --by the way, I think she can stick up for herself. I know you have that male chivalry thing going, but it is only part of your fallen nature . . . so, you don't need to defend her. --no that wasn't sarcasm. I've moved on to playfully mocking you. It's more fun.)

Mike Greiner said...

true, Anon, it is not a masculine way to describe the guys in the bride!

But perhaps my lack of understanding of how it can be is only due to the fall, and therefore temporary! :)

Wanda Martin said...

There is much confusion in the SBC camp, and Satan must be THRILLED by it all! If he can keep us bickering about authority in the family and in the church, he can keep us sidelined so that the lost people we should be evangelizing are condemned for eternity! Shame on all of us, especially the leadership within the SBC!!!

It's very clear from Scripture that husbands lead their wives and children by serving them. My husband is a master at this, and I would follow him ANYWHERE!

Remember Jesus and the washing of His disciples' feet in response to their argument about who was the greatest? We need a huge dose of humility among SBC leaders if this demonination is to survive. Wake up!!!

It's no wonder the SBC has the highest divorce rate among all of the Protestant denominations.

Headship does not mean Lordship!

Anonymous said...

Corrie - You said, "While Voddie may have some good things to say about youth ministry and how parents are dropping the ball, his cure is as toxic as any poison. There are many who are saying the same thing but don't need to offer an extreme and poisonous cure and then label it as "biblical"."

While I appreciate you not making a blanket statement condemning Voddie and all his teaching and we seemingly agree regarding some of the points I (he) made, if you don't mind I'll disagree with your assessment that the cure is extreme and poisonous.

Your comment has left me wondering (generally speaking) if America (not Corrie personally but as a culture) has drifted so far away from some certain things that we have lost sight of what's really biblical?

My mom used to call that being too smart for our own good. :)

We all are probably guilty a little.

SL1M

Anonymous said...

"The simple question, had you know mother nor father was the answer. Did you not grow up with masculine and feminine and see the differences for yourself?"

Beyond the fact that he shaved his face and she permed her hair, I cannot see that there were huge differences in intellect or emotions. They were both educated, very close and enjoyed much of the same things such as walking in Faith, business, politics, etc.

Which part of that would make him less masculine or her less feminine? I just do not get it.

Lydia

Anonymous said...

Hi Wanda Martin,

You said,

"It's no wonder the SBC has the highest divorce rate among all of the Protestant denominations."

Is this just your opinion, or is it statistically proven?

If it is true, has the divorce rate risen SINCE the 'conservative resurgence' a.k.a the 'hostile takeover'?

I believe that Southern Baptists have their weddings blessed in church: one of my cousin's married in the church, so this information really surprises me.

L's Gran

Anonymous said...

Hi Wanda Martin,

You said,

"It's no wonder the SBC has the highest divorce rate among all of the Protestant denominations."

Is this just your opinion, or is it statistically proven?

If it is true, has the divorce rate risen SINCE the 'conservative resurgence' a.k.a the 'hostile takeover'?

I believe that Southern Baptists have their weddings blessed in church: one of my cousin's married in the church, so this information really surprises me.

L's Gran

peter lumpkins said...

Wade,

Thanks. As for your response, Wade, you ignored my points by shooting off a firecracker pertaining to the "style" of my post. Nice try. Unfortunately, charging heresy deserves more than a little sideshow deterrent like that. So, back to my *style*.

First, my brother, you ignored my point about "tampering" by echoing the retort "Simple English." For me "Simple English"--at least in Georgia--sees a pronounced difference between Tarter's words and your interpretation of them:

TARTER: "Feminism is in the core of our hearts apart from the saving work of the shed blood of Christ, and not simply because we are militant against male authority, but primarily because we are opposed to the greatest authority of all our Creator."

WADE: (depending on which 3 versions used): "Feminism is resistance to the male's authority."

Simple English? I don't think so.

Secondly, you write: "eternal subordination of the female to the male simply means that males have inherent authority over females - God made them that way." Wade, for the life of me, I must be way behind times. I've read complementarians for some time now but I don't recall them teaching this. I'll ask once again for the theologians--especially SBC theologians--who teach *eternal subordination* of female to male, which is what you keep alleging.

Thirdly, you suggest "eternal subordination of the Trinity is heresy according to the Nicaen counsel [sic]." It most certainly is not *unless* you assume the next statement you make: '"functional" subordination is a nice way of saying subordinate in essence."'

Wade, that is simply wrong. How do you conclude such? To allege something like that without one bit of evidence borders on the naive. The difference between *function* and *essence* is the difference between what something/someone *is* and what something/someone *does*. I assume you *eat* bananas but I do not assume you *are* a monkey.

Interestingly, you contradict your statement above in your very next statement: "There is eternal equality in the Trinity - different roles..." Wade, that is precisely what complementarians are saying--"equality with a difference." How you can write this and not see the blatant inconsistency is painful for me to point out.

Of course, you completely ignored the point I made about your public rampage for the Garner motion for over a year, calling for "BI" to let the people alone who teach/believe things outside of the BF&M. Yet here you are charging men with heretical teachings because they *formulate* the eternal relations of the Trinity different from you, relations not spelled out in the BF&M.

So much for calling for an alliance of all Bible-believing evangelicals. There can be no alliance with heretics. Or, did not The Council of Nicaea make such clear and *Simple English*?

With that, I am...

Peter

Anonymous said...

Peter your name should be Petty.

Charles

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Charles,

Why, thank you, my brother. I consider that a compliment. With that, I am...

Peter

Corrie said...

SL1M,

"While I appreciate you not making a blanket statement condemning Voddie and all his teaching and we seemingly agree regarding some of the points I (he) made, if you don't mind I'll disagree with your assessment that the cure is extreme and poisonous."

Do you understand Voddie's theology and cure for what ails us? Are you familiar with it?

"Your comment has left me wondering (generally speaking) if America (not Corrie personally but as a culture) has drifted so far away from some certain things that we have lost sight of what's really biblical?"

So, you agree with Voddie that a woman is to always be serving her father's or her husband's vision and that her only calling and purpose as a woman is to be a wife and/or mother or permanent daughter in her father's household? Do you believe that all youth groups are wrong and that age segregated groupings should ever take place and that children should always be with their parents (no public schools, no colleges for females, no youth groups, Sunday School classes, VBS, AWANA, etc)? Do you agree that a daughter is her father's helpmeet? Do you, along with Voddie, agree that Sunday School is a product of communism and therefore tainted with evil?

I don't understand what these certain things you are talking about? I haven't drifted away from certain things. I have taken care to guard the treasure that has been given to me by the Holy Spirit. I keep Jesus' commandments because I love Him. I do not drift away from certain things but Voddie's "cure" is not a certain thing. It is a manmade doctrinal system akin to the very thing Christ came to destroy.

"My mom used to call that being too smart for our own good. :)"

Yes, I agree with your mother and that is exactly how I feel about Doug Phillips and Co. and their brand of doctrine- they are too smart for their own good to the point that they don't even need the Bible anymore except for a few cherry-picked verses ripped out of their contexts and propped up with prooftexts.

debbiekaufman said...

Wanda: Evidently it is not clear, or there would not be so much debate. Or it is clear and being misinterpreted by using one verse here and there without scripture interpreting scripture.

Unless we as a church learn how to treat others and that would include women, I personally do not want to subject a newly converted Christian, especially a woman, to the church atmosphere. If it's in scripture it is important. Most who say that we shouldn't discuss it are those who do not want the boat rocked. Their long held beliefs to be held up to scrutiny. Personally I think it's time it was. It's refreshing to finally discuss with those whose view differs instead of each going to their own corners and discussing it any way amongst themselves.

Just because it is being discussed, with Bibles open, or at least I hope the Bibles are open, it doesn't mean that people are not out talking to others about Christ. I believe the opposite is true, but we must clean our house before we allow others to be subjected to the abuses that are occurring with this type of teaching.

Anonymous said...

Lydia, I must say that most of your comments I THINK I agree with, but this one seems very odd to me.

"Beyond the fact that he shaved his face and she permed her hair, I cannot see that there were huge differences in intellect or emotions."

Really? Shaving and hair dressing? That's it? No huge differences in intellect or emotions?

In the most pleasant way I can, I would ask you to reread what you wrote. From what I have read, it seems you have a tendency to reply emotionally and aggressively and I think you have done that here.

There is a lot of stuff (to put it nicely) floating around this comment section, but I think a clear point that is not being debated by anyone is that God made men and women differently. I would even say that it is a universally accepted fact that men and women are very different intellectually and emotionally.

Wait! Hear me now. I say different...not better...or worse...but different.

Does anyone else really disagree with that?

Truth be told, I have 10 jokes running through my head right now that deal with the differences between men and women intellectually and emotionally. :)

SL1M

Anonymous said...

Debbie said, "we must clean our house before we allow others to be subjected to the abuses that are occurring with this type of teaching".

'clean our house'
Well girls, I guess it's up to us.
"women's work" and all. :)

Corrie said...

John,

Wade is picking on women?

Can you think of any other examples of picking on women?

How about the Klouda situation? Do you also think that she was picked on?

Tarter's teachings are public and therefore open to public discussion. If CBMW is worried about single 25 year old administrative assistants being "picked on" for their public writings, then they should exercise their authority over her and protect her from the public scrutiny.

Wanda Martin said...

Hi L's Gran!

The reason I know about the divorce rate among Southern Baptists is that I researched it within the last few weeks. Here is one resource that backs up my claim:

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html

This article states: "Baptists had the highest divorce rate of the major denominations: 29 percent."

That statistic comes from a George Barna study. Some questions the reliability of statistics, but I believe divorce statistics are fairly accurate.

I must admit that I was surprised as well. I will continue to investigate this and keep you apprised of my findings.

Bob Cleveland said...

PastaKeith,

I am a complementarian. But that doesn't describe what I believe women can and can't do, or how the biblical commands play into that.

Lee Herring said...

Dear Sir,

In all ways an excellent post.

Thank you!

Yours,
Lee Herring
PS: And as always, Go Pokes!

Wade Burleson said...

Peter,

First, we disagree. Surprise.

Secondly, the theological premise for female subjection to males is found in the teaching that man was created first (order of creation)and the new "eternal subordination" (Wayne Grudem) in the Trinity. Miss Tarter does not seem to understand that females are never called to subordinate themselves to males, but basis her belief that feminism (militating against male authority) is sin on the theology tjat she's been taught regarding creation and the Trinity. I would recommend that you, Peter, visit with Cheryl Schatz (whose video on the SBC, evangelicalism and eternal subordination is due out shortly), Lydia, Cindy, or any other competent females to continue your research.

Thirdly, the Nicaean Council declared eternal subordination heresy. The very word "subordination" means "less authority." Jesus Christ does not have less authority. He is God, for in Him all the fullness of the Godhead bodily dwelt. He himself said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Call it different roles, different ministries, different functions - but there is no subordination. Jesus willingly died. IF you say, "But He said, "Not my will, but thine be done," I respond, "God cannot die. He died as the perfect human being He was, but it was His will (Christ's will) to die. You don't have God the Father forcing something on the Son that the Son did not desire. That, Peter, would be subordination. There is no such thing in the Godhead.

Finally, I ignored your comment on the Garner motion "rampage" because you, as is customary, use inflammatory language to try to make a point. It's best to ignore such attempts.

Good day to you too, Peter,

Wade

Anonymous said...

Corrie - No offense, but you are way too emotionally involved for me to attempt to dialogue with you about this.

I tried to be gentle in my comment to you making sure to not say you personally and make other general statements along the way, but you let emotion get the best of you. You have proven that.

Like I said earlier, Voddie can be picked apart on some things and there are things that I disagree with him about. He told me 10 years ago before he was "Voddie" that he doesn't use his athletic background to lure (young) people in. I always thought that he should.

I suspect you have an axe to grind with VF or Doug or whoever else on a purely personal level and frankly I'm not interested.

What I do know is that I know Voddie Baucham and his family personally. He is not everything you have said here.

This I know for certain.

I'll let you have the last word if you like. I only request that you do not ask me a direct question because I would rather not reply. That sounds so rude, I realize. But I learned long ago that meaningful dialogue is squashed when emotion is a drowning influence.

SL1M

Wanda Martin said...

L's Gran --

I apologize for the incomplete link to the article I mentioned in my previous comment.

Here it is:

www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html

Blessings!

Anonymous said...

Dear Wanda,

Thank you. Friday is my 40th wedding anniversary, so when I read your info, it really caught my I.

After 40 years, I can honestly say, if our marriage had not been blessed in Church, I'm not sure we would have made it! God is good.

Thanks for offering to keep me updated. :)

Also, 29% is still lower than the national average, so that, at least, is something positive. :)

L's Gran

Cindy said...

SLM1 wrote: I feel like I am a conservative, normal Baptist like all the rest of us here :), but I must say that I actually enjoy Voddie and much of his message.


I have the same struggle with Voddie's writing. (I even find myself calling him Voddie because he is endearing and personable when it is far more my habit to refer to him by his last name, even with people who are my friends when writing about these matters.) There is truth in them and there's a lot of good doctrine.

The huge problem with him is the fact that the wheat and the tares are sewn together, and without keen discernment, people miss the subtle shift. I find much the same thing happens when I listen to some of Russell Moore's sermons and such. He starts out strong and good, seemingly in the right direction, and he goes veering off course quickly. If you are weighing all that is being said carefully, you will note that something is not bearing witness with sound doctrine and the witness of the Spirit in your heart. If you are caught up in liking someone or the appeal to authority, you are less likely to notice.

So I do agree with you, and Voddie is a tough person to decipher, especially if you like him. I just recently wrote about this on my blog, after struggling with many issues reading only a section of the first chapter of Voddie's Family Centered Faith book. I've put it down for now because it is so stressful. There are beautiful pearls there mingled with what I will call lies and garbage.

It's deceptive, and I think that for those who are attentive for the first 5 minutes of a good sounding sermon and lower their discernment a little, people like Voddie are very dangerous. They have all the appearances of being good, but the fine details (0r sometimes obvious ones) become quickly troublesome.

And all this grieves me and is probably the most difficult aspect of spiritually abusive systems and ideologies (like "Im a recovering feminist"). There is truth there and goodness. There is some good, good ministry. But there is also much that is not godly and much that is assumed to be Biblical and wholesome that turns out to be or produces a great deal of distress, difficulty, and sometimes a highway headed to heresy.

Sometimes the credulity of people in the church and even my own just scares the daylights out of me. And it should.

May God give us all great discernment! James said that He will give us wisdom when we ask and will not be stingy with it. May God pour it out on His church until we are swimming in wisdom!

Corrie said...

"Many times we are so busy looking for the woman with the hyphenated name that we miss the woman who scoffs at a man for opening the door for her. Both of these actions are products of our feminist heart. "

This is from Tarter's article.

I am a 42 year old woman and I have never scoffed at a man who opens a door for me nor have I been so busy looking for the woman with the hyphenated name. In fact, I haven't looked for it at all.

She seems to see herself as a former radical feminist who had no use for men, marriage or children. And then when she was saved, she carried that over and wanted the same thing but in a more acceptable Christian sort of way:

"After conversion I sang a slightly different tune, although held onto many of my previous ideals regarding marriage and settling down. I simply masked it with a missions/ministry focus, content to be the single girl on a mission to save a third-world country for Christ. What I did not want, or think I needed, was the idea that my changed life meant changed priorities. "

1 Cor. 7 tells us that a single woman is happier because she can devote herself to the Lord and His work. A single woman will be spared from the troubles of married life. This is just a fact of life told to us by God. Could it be that she is being pressured from extra-biblical teaching to be something God has not called her to be?

Why shouldn't she be content to be a single girl on a mission to bring the gospel to a 3rd world country? This isn't a feminist concept, it is a biblical one.

Also, she makes the assertion that Eve was the first feminist. I am assuming that is because of the extra-biblical teaching that Eve usurped her husband's authority in the Fall and that she led by being the first one to eat of the forbidden fruit?

I don't see Eve as the "first feminist" at all. There is no evidence to make such an assertion. And, from what I can see, Eve was not a rebellious wife who continually resisted her husband's leadership. Nor was she cursed with some evil desire to usurp her husband.

This is from her blog:

"But I still held on to the fact that I could be a Christian and still be an independent woman, free from authority. I didn't need a husband because I was going to do great things for Jesus. Marriage seemed to be a hindrance to these great things."

I don't understand this thought process. I never, as a single woman, had the desire to be free from authority. I just can't identify and it might be an age thing. I was raised to respect authority and to honor it.

Marriage does hinder going to to 3rd world countries and other things of this nature. Your priorities have to change, per 1 Cor 7, and a married man is now concerned with how he may please his wife and vice versa. As I see it, it applies to both genders and it isn't just the woman who is called to give up her "vision" and "calling" when she gets married.

Corrie said...

Wow, Sl1M, I am too emotionally involved for you to discuss this with me? Or is it that I was just factual and asking you what "certain things" in Baucham's teachings that we (America) is getting away from?

I can assure you that I am not emoting and that I was in full control of my faculties. Why not just assume I am being as objective as you are? That would be the Christian thing to do as in giving me the benefit of the doubt. Or is it something else about me that would make you think I was "too emotional" and you are just logical, factual, and unemotional about the issue?

Please don't feel like you have to respond to me. You have made up your mind and you are free to do that. I just had to say that you are way off in your assessment and you have no objective and quantitative basis for making such a statement about my response to you. So I am left with thinking that you are the one who is emotional about this because you cannot tolerate a differing viewpoint on someone you admire. I could be wrong but your response is to left of field that I am at a loss to explain your over the top reaction to my post.

Because I disagree with Baucham's cure for our youth culture, I have an axe to grind? Sheesh. That is an ad hominem abusive logical fallacy.

If you do agree with his stance on women having only one calling and purpose (marriage and motherhood) then that belief would contradict what is said in other places by other complementarian writers. It would also contradict the Bible.

Anonymous said...

"Beyond the fact that he shaved his face and she permed her hair, I cannot see that there were huge differences in intellect or emotions."

Really? Shaving and hair dressing? That's it? No huge differences in intellect or emotions?"

The matra of biblical manhood and womanhood is so ingrained that I knew this would be totally misunderstood but I am brave enough to venture being ridiculed to open up such a discussion of what these terms mean scripturally beyond sexual/physical differences.

"In the most pleasant way I can, I would ask you to reread what you wrote. From what I have read, it seems you have a tendency to reply emotionally and aggressively and I think you have done that here. "

The 'emotion' accusation is being tossed around quite a bit. It is meant to be insulting and I have noticed it is used toward women here, but that is ok. It comes with this territory. It is a perfect example of what I am talking about. :o) How much of that is cultural, perception, etc. Arrogance is an 'emotional' response, too, but it seems to be more acceptable to some. Who gets to define what is emotional? If I signed as 'Bob' I wonder what the reaction would be? That Bob is a wimp, perhaps?

"There is a lot of stuff (to put it nicely) floating around this comment section, but I think a clear point that is not being debated by anyone is that God made men and women differently."

No one is denying that. Yes, They are biologically/physically different. God created us that way. Beyond that, what are the differences that God specifically created in male and female other than physical/biological?

" I would even say that it is a universally accepted fact that men and women are very different intellectually and emotionally."

Being universally accepted has nothing to do with scriptural teaching. How much of what we believe about differences are really culturally ingrained?

"Wait! Hear me now. I say different...not better...or worse...but different."

The 'lesser' application is implied in your continued responses to women being 'emotional' in this thread. I would appreciate hearing from others if I tend to sound 'emotional'. Maybe I am just 'passionate'.

"Does anyone else really disagree with that?"

Outside of physical differences, perhaps Galatians.

"Truth be told, I have 10 jokes running through my head right now that deal with the differences between men and women intellectually and emotionally. :)"

That does not surprise me. We have been conditioned to think in such terms. Myself included. And I think it is time for all of us to get rid of our silly insults about men and women and their differences. Men are not from Mars nor women from Venus.

Let's start talking about our similarities in Christ. :o)

Anonymous said...

Slim, your comments are offensive. You seem to see a male forcefully stating his convictions as just that--in a sort of John Wayne manner.

But let a woman forcefully state her convictions and you trot out the old diatribe of "those emotional women" and you just cannot talk to them

Honestly. Do you not see the sexism in your replies?

Are you that afraid of being bested in a heated debate with a woman?

Linda

Corrie said...

Just a point of clarification so that no one understands SL1M's statements to be true:

"What I do know is that I know Voddie Baucham and his family personally. He is not everything you have said here."

I never said anything about Baucham. I was merely relating what he actually teaches and believes.

If I have related something he does not believe, then I am open to correction. If not, SL1M should be intellectually honest about his statements and show me where I am wrong about what Baucham believes.

He is probably a wonderful guy, husband, father, etc. I never said anything about him, I only spoke about his teachings.

But, emotions cause people the inability to separate the person from their teachings so anyone who discusses public teachings is automatically seen as attacking the person.

And now that I know that this person knows Baucham, personally, you can view his statements about me in the proper light.

Frankly, I am not the one who has an emotional connection to this discussion, he/she does.

Cindy said...

Catching up on...

I missed Corrie's and SLM1's comments back and forth.

Having spent a great deal of time studying Vision Forum and his views, having watched my very forensic, legal and fair husband get infuriated over Voddie Baucham's comments on the "Return of the Daughters" video (when I did not even realize that my husband was watching) and reviewing the writings of many others who share these similar beliefs, I have to agree with Corrie.

Did you realize that you pulled and ad hominem circumstantial logical fallacy in order to prove yourself and to devalue her? Curious.

No women voting or working outside the home, no college our training for women outside of the home, no Sunday School (Voddie says that it's Darwinian and communistic), no age-appropriate education of children, home catechism of children as the only faithful Christian method of training children, only strict courtship, etc.... Sounds like conviction turned into rigid mandates to me. I'd consider more than a few of those things to be poison.

Voddie is a reactionary, not that there's not a whole heck of a lot to be reacting about these days. I'd call many of his reactions poison, despite the fact that he also simultaneously embraces sound doctrine. Again, that is what makes him dangerous and deceptive. You have no idea what you're buying into -- spiritual abuse and a system authoritarianism, passed off as God's highest and best. It's Christian gnosticism.

Stephen said...

Patterson, Mohler, and the rest of the fundamentalists are all about male superiority IN EVERYTHING. Unfortunately, with the "new" BFM, they can make an argument against the autonomy of the local church. Time to get out....if I only had a place to go.

Cindy said...

Oh no! I wonder if Tarter thinks that I'm multigenerationally cursed?

I didn't hyphenate my name, but as my mother did and her mother before her and many of her sisters (our American of French descent tradition), I made my middle name my maiden name when I married. My mom likes to tell people that her name middle name is Henrietta as a joke, using only her maiden name initial.

I'm ruined! Gasp!

Wanda Martin said...

Hi Debbie Kaufman!

Please don't misunderstand my comment. I would imagine that you and I are allies in what appears to be a battle over interpretation of Scripture.

I'm stunned that these issues are even being discussed in the SBC during the 21st century. It's so disappointing to me! It is shameful that we are spending so much energy debating the role of women when we should be collectively using it to reach the lost. I honestly believe that women in the SBC are second-class citizens, and it's getting worse with every passing year.

Jesus elevated women when He was among us, and this authoritarian attitude is ungodly in my ever to be humble opinion. I truly believe that some men and women will answer to God for being stumbling blocks to women who are only trying to exercise their spiritual gifts given to them by Almighty God.

Blessings!

Anonymous said...

Okay. Thanks for the time Corrie (and Linda and Cindy anyone else I may have missed).

I said you (corrie) could have the last word and I meant it.

Even if it was 32 paragraphs.

No kidding 32 paragraphs! :)

It's okay to laugh. I promise.

Take care Ladies.

p.s. Wade - Thanks for letting me walk into that hornets nest. I didn't mean to cause such a stir. I'm thinking I'm not using enough smiley faces when I write.

:)

I wish I could wordsmith like you.

Appreciate you brother.

SL1M

Anonymous said...

Dear Stephen,

You said,
"Patterson, Mohler, and the rest of the fundamentalists are all about male superiority IN EVERYTHING. Unfortunately, with the "new" BFM, they can make an argument against the autonomy of the local church. Time to get out....if I only had a place to go."

Are these men infallible? Can they be voted out?
Can the new BFM be changed?
Think, how can this be done.

Then, stay. And get to work. :)

Anonymous said...

Watch -out those evil fundamentalist

Reject The Enid Tyranny
Robert i Masters

Tom Parker said...

Robby:

Are you an evil fundamentalist?

Anonymous said...

Tom
No but my father was before he was kicked out the Methodist church and killed by Cannibals in Irian Jaya.

Reject the Enid Tyranny
Robert I Masters

Cindy said...

Way back there in the comments, Lindon noted the Henry Center debate on Oct. 9th at Trinity EDS.

If anyone is interested:

I wrote to the Henry Center, and they did say that it would be available on their site at some point and that it would be "webcasted." I'm not sure if that means that it will go live on the internet, but they would make it available on the website sometime following the conference.

Back to regular programming.

Gee, I never was called a hornet before.

Anonymous said...

Tom,

Definition of 'an evil fundamentalist' : someone who fights the darkness with darkness.

Cindy said...

Another question.

Why is it that men are so rarely accused of being rebellious against male authority? Is that okay under hierarchy?

Someone recently brought the Monstrous Regiment of Women by John Knox to my attention, and he lists a host of deficiencies that are part of the female nature, according to him. It was amusing, because it seemed like a list of general sins that Apostles like Paul and books like Proverbs attribute to all, regardless of gender. His list of deficiencies are very much found to be present in women, but I would argue that they are equally at work in men also.

So in that respect, why are there no sermons and soap boxes where the purists preach about rebellion against all male authority by both genders? Why did this become a pink sin, and why are men seemingly exempt from it? Are there no examples of men rejecting or rebelling against male authority in the Word? Hmmm.

Tom Parker said...

Robert:

I am sincerely sorry that your father was killed by cannibals.

kehrsam said...

Ms. Tarter is equating feminism with sin, nothing less. While I agree with those who say it is possible to take feminism too far, there is no reason a person -- male or female -- cannot be both a feminist and a Bible-believing Christian, in the same way that is possible to be both a Democrat and a Christian. It depends on your priorities and where you feel the Lord is caling you into service.

And for those who disagree, my comments are of no consequence anyway, as Ms. Tarter is only a woman. ;-)

Kurt

Anonymous said...

Tom
No need to apologize. Great story about how the Gospel has transformed the lives of the Yali people.
You can read about it in this book
Lords of the Earth by Don Richardson
http://www.donrichardsonbooksales.com/
It happened in 1968

Grace from nashville
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one, or does it sound like Jim Crow has only changed targets in the SBC, not died out?

And Slim--don't bow out! Speak your mind without resorting to denigrating your opponent rather than refuting their points!

Linda

Kathy said...

'Pointing to the Trinity in order to establish the "eternal subordination" of the female to the male is a new and growing phenomenon. Yet this heretical teaching is taking hold among some in our Southern Baptist Convention, particularly at our seminaries, as a theological basis to keep women eternally subordinate to men.'

A few days ago my comment did not go through, so here it what it was essentialy about:

A hierarchal Trinity should be a theological basis to keep male sons subordinate throughtout their entire lives to their fathers. And eternaly they should be subject to them, fathers commanding their sons their entire lives, and the sons submitting to their father's wills and serving their fathers. This should be the very first application made of a hierarchal Trinity.

Anonymous said...

Robert,

Of course, you're kidding.
I mean about those cannibals.



WORRIED

Kathy said...

MALE authority has always been the issue at the bottom of the so-called 'comp' position. That is what 'it' is built on, no mistake about that. This IS THE foundational problem that egals have with the comp/patri position, and always has been. What I am saying is that this is the very foundation of 'comp' theology.

Men must be born with authority in the Y chromosome.

greg.w.h said...

Another, online version of the story that I found:

Click this link then "Search in this book" (it's a search box in the right-hand column) for Phillip Masters (you can cut and paste the name) and select the link named Page 244 in the search box and showed up as the second link when I do the "search in this book".

I had heard the story of Stanley Dale and Phillip Masters--especially their courageous stand when they were about to be murdered--when I lived in Indonesia or shortly before went overseas (it occurred about 5 years before my parents arrived on the field).

I am vaguely familiar with Worldteam, but wasn't aware of RBMU that your parents went with. But then again, there were LOTS of societies then and not all were essentially denominational. In some ways, that was a stronger model especially considering the work of folks like Hudson Taylor with the China Inland Mission.

I looked through some of this history today, and I was amazed at how these groups would first experience a call, then frequently created a college to train missionaries, and then send them. I was especially intrigued that RBMU came out of Harley Bible College in London (formed in 1873) while Worldteam (they merged with RBMU in 1995) was formed as a Bible institute in central Cuba in 1928.

Thanks for mentioning this, Robert.

Greg Harvey

Lin said...

"Ms. Tarter is equating feminism with sin, nothing less. While I agree with those who say it is possible to take feminism too far, there is no reason a person -- male or female -- cannot be both a feminist and a Bible-believing Christian,.."

Wonder if the opposite of femininism, 'masculinism', would be considered a sin also by Miss Tarter?

"Gee, I never was called a hornet before."

He said 'nest' of hornets. Do female hornets build the nest? Is there a Queen Hornet? :o)

peter lumpkins said...

Wade,

Thanks again for keeping the conversation going. First, if by "inflammatory" you mean my descriptor "rampage" one has to just laugh and go on. It's not even worth it.

More concerning to me is your subtle accusation that my custom is to employ inflammatory rhetoric. That, my friend, is a grossly cheap statement. And, I thought there was hope we could keep personalities out. :^(

Secondly, Wade, I asked for SBC theologians who taught "eternal subordination of female to male" and I'm reluctantly given a reference by Wayne Grudem.

When did he switch from the Vineyard fellowship? (for the record, I think it was George Knight, not Wayne Grudem, who, in the late 70s delivered the 'bombshell book' on the asserting the analogous nature to Trinity & male headship)

Frankly, I think you're stalling, Wade. If you have an SBC theologian, you'd surely have fired your arrow my way, I think.

O.K. Allow me to offer you one. Since you like Southern Baptist Theological Seminary so much, let's start there:

"If the Scriptures assert the Divine generation, and the equality of the Son and the Father, why should any deny their consistency with each other?...does sonship imply inferiority of nature? There may be SUBORDINATION of rank, or office. But surely there is none of nature."

"That sonship may imply *inferiority* of official rank and personal relation, is readily admitted. But it does not
always do this. Such SUBORDINATION of person, indeed, seems to be taught of the Son of God to his Father*.

"But it is equality and sameness of nature, not of office, which makes the Son truly God."

"It is the triune God, who is self-existent, and independent. **SUBORDINATION*, as to the mode of subsistence, and operation, is a scriptural fact**; and so also is the perfect and equal godhead of the Father, and the Son, and, therefore, these facts must be consistent.

"In the consubstantial identity of the human soul, there is a SUBORDINATION of one faculty to another, and so, however incomprehensible to us, there may be a SUBORDINATION in the trinity consistent with the identity of essence in the godhead."[favorably quoting C. Hodge]

"...we are only taught an *inferiority* of one person in the Trinity to another, as a person. Nothing indicates that it is of one of them as God, to another as God, or of the Godhead of one to the Godhead of another.

"It is only of the Son to the Father, and not of God the Son to God the Father. The subsistence of each of the persons in the same divine nature may still remain true, as well as that partaking of all of it by each, which makes all equally God."

"In this mode of subsistence, therefore, *inferiority* of the person of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and Son, may be said to exist.

Without any superiority as God,
therefore, the Father may be said to be *greater than* the Son, because of the personal relations in the Trinity”

"But there is also a SUBORDINATION of office or rank still more plainly taught. By virtue of this, the Father sends the Son, and the Father and Son send the Spirit."

"We find then in this outward action of the persons the same relations and SUBORDINATION exhibited personally in the Trinity. The Father acts through the Son, (Eph. 3:14-19; Heb. 1:2,) and sends forth the Spirit" (Ps. 104:30)

"The SUBORDINATION of office, in all the positions [Christ] thus occupied, is plainly revealed...when the hour had come for his betrayal and crucifixion...Christ himself declared...that it was the work the Father gave him to do, John 17:4.

So also, had he said, that he came to do the Father's will, (John 6:38,) and to "work the works of him that sent him." John 9:4....

The SUBORDINATION of the Spirit in this work is revealed, in general, in the statements that he is sent by the Father and the Son. John 14:16, 17; 15:26." (all CAPS mine)

Sorry to make so many quotes, Wade, but, I assure you, I left out as many as I included.

Anyone can check the references. Click on Founders, pull up James Boyce's systematic theology, and read away. Indeed Boyce has a major subheading entitled "Subordination Between the Persons" (p.114).

Boyce makes the classic distinction I made earlier toward which you pooh-poohed, Wade: there is a distinction that must be maintained between "relational subordination"[what others call 'functional'] and "essential subordination" [what others call 'ontological'].

I trust the new video will--since it deals with the "SBC"--critique James P. Boyce's subordination teaching, or should I say "heresy".

Again, Wade, your charge of heresy, if levelled toward contemporary SBC teachers must also be applicable to SBTS' first major theologian.

Last word (promise)!

Wade to suggest as do you that "subordination" by definition 'means "less authority"' is simply wrong once again. Neither the Latin nor the Greek bears that raw definition--at least the sources I checked.

And as for the English...well, plain and simple has about 8-10 different usages of the term, none of which I saw corresponds precisely with your definition. I'd be interested to know where you got that definition.

That aside, to insist theologians mean by it precisely as you define the term needs no rebuttal. Please continue writing.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

Lin said...

From The New Dictionary of Theology edited by David F. Wright, Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1988.), 693. The article is by Gerald L. Bray.

Western Trinitarianism was matched by its Eastern rival, which is associated with the name of Origen. Working quite independently of Tertullian, Origen developed a doctrine of the three hypostaseis of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which were revealed to share the same divine ousia (essence). Origen arranged these in hierarchical order, with the Father as God-in-himself (autotheos), the Son as his exact image, and the Holy Spirit as the image of the Son. He insisted that this order existed in eternity, so that there could be no question of saying that there had been a time when the Son had not existed. But he also maintained that the Son had always been subordinated to the Father in the celestial hierarchy.

This view was later questioned by Arius, who argued that a subordinate being could not be co-eternal with the Father, since coeternity would imply equality. He was countered by Athanasius and others who replied that the Son was indeed co-eternal with the Father, but not subordinate to him, except in the context of the incarnation. Classical Trinitarianism developed in earnest after the Council of Nicaea (325). There it had been stated that the Son was consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, but soon afterwards this key term and the doctrine it embodied were widely rejected in favour of compromise formulae, such as homoiousios, ‘of a similar substance’. Athanasius, almost alone in the East, but after 339 with the support of the West, battled for an understanding (reflected in homoousios as he read it) which would make the Son numerically identical with the Father. The Son was not to be regarded as a part of God, nor was he a second deity; he was simply God himself, in whom the fullness of divinity dwelt (Col. 2:8) and in whom the Father himself was to be seen (Jn. 14:9). Eventually his viewpoint was secured, but not before controversy had broken out over the Holy Spirit.

Looks like Athanasius is to egalitarians as Origen is to complementarians in their understandings of the Trinity. Thank God for the work of Athanasius and the establishment of his creed.

And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together

Equality within the Trinity is hardly a feminist idea. It is pure orthodoxy.

peter lumpkins said...

Lin,

You write: "Equality within the Trinity is hardly a feminist idea. It is pure orthodoxy." I agree. Yet, as Baptist theologians have pointed out, it is a mistake to overlook the distinction theologians have been careful to employ. Compare Boyce's view I just cited.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

debbiekaufman said...

Peter: Tim Guthrie seems to believe it in his latest post. I'm sure he's not the only Southern Baptist. And it is used as the argument as to why women should be subordinate. So it is being believed among Baptist Theologians, as there are several who write for CBMW. Peter, you'd make a fine Democrat. You employ rhetoric, making it personal,there is never a time that doesn't happen and in true form you then deny it. In fact where I come from that would be labeled a jerk. But I won't call you that. :)

Vicky: I agree, I just never think dialogue is wrong in these situations. Besides, most people who say they are not saying women are not equal, disprove it by their comments and actions. That is always good because it gives credence to what we are saying. :)

Anonymous said...

Appreciate the offer Linda but there is an old saying...

Fool me once, shame on you...

Well, you know the rest.

It is clearly a 15 to 1 ratio we have going on in here so if any of the rest of these idiot men have any sense, they will all shut up until Wade post something again.

Please Wade! Make the next post about football or Nascar! And soon!!! :)

SL1M

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Debbie,

Again one asks for beans and cornbread and gets sand and straw. If you cannot give me a reference, why would you address the question?

And, I hope you have a very nice, wonder, peace-filled evening yourself.

With that, I am...

Peter

Anna A said...

Lydia,

Many comments ago, you were asking about women's role and culture.

May I recommend the book, "Gender and Grace" by Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen. She writes from the Reformed perspective and is a phychologist.

I found the book very interesting and helpful on my journey.

Tom Parker said...

Peter:

One word describes you--wordy.

Tim G said...

Debbie,
Once again you misrepresent me and that is sad.

Go Peter, you are on a roll!

Anonymous said...

Lin,

You said, "Equality within the Trinity is hardly a feminist idea. It is pure orthodoxy."

Amen. I wonder why the leadership so fears the full authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, that they would:

1. Remove Him as the central focus of the Baptist Faith and Message.

2. And, try to 'demote' his position within the Holy Trinity?

Are these people for real? How can real Christian leaders be afraid of the power of Jesus, His message, and His Deity? ????

Anonymous said...

Hi Lin,

Sorry, I forgot to sign,

I'm L's Gran :)

Kathy said...

'Secondly: The New Testament teaches that wives are to submit to the leadership of their husbands'

That is NOT what the bible says, and it appears as if you have equated a husband with 'leader' somehow... Ah, the Y chromosome again...

Wives unto your husbands. That's what the Greek says. The word for submit is borrowed from the previous verse.

Cindy said...

Can someone explain to me how and when Charles Hodge and James Pettigru Boyce were canonized? I must have missed the email and holy decree. And the one about certain groups of human beings having the ability to get every jot and tittle accurate on every point of doctrine -- you know, like the Founders.

(How is it that you can tell who falls into the "on the level of Holy Scripture" category? Are there special glasses that allow you to see the seal of perfection in the forehead and the watermark on websites? Someone let me know, because it's a lot of work trying to figure this stuff out. And I'm at a disadvantage because all the sensible men have stopped posting, so there's only the hum of hornets wings. I can only hope for Wade to put up a new post so I can plan my new stinging rampage via my inferior and subordinate brain?)

Lovely.

How precious it is...

Elisabeth said...

Anyone want their views of feminism turned upside down? Check out www.feministsforlife.org. Not all feminists are god hating, man hating, militant pro-abortionists! Feminism in and of itself is only women wanting equal rights as men, and saying that women should not have to submit to abuse. Most early feminists, even, were pro-life.

I consider myself a feminist of that stripe, and I have no intention of recovering from that!

Anonymous said...

Hi Cindy,

Looks like the powers that be are trying to unravel the Holy Trinity.

Two thousand years of Christian tradition down the drain? Someone has got a very inflated sense of infallibility OR someone is manipulating the ancient orthodox doctrine of the Trinity for an agenda that has not YET been fully revealed.

Sooner or later, all those nice Baptist people who pray with whole hearts to God, but don't study theology in depth, are going start saying, "This is getting weird."
And it won't be a minute too soon.

peter lumpkins said...

Cindy,

I suppose you are referring to the quoted I offered. However, I made no such implication that eikther Hodge or Boyce is or ought to be "canonized."

Rather, the charge consistently levelled on this post/thread by our brother Burleson is that this "new" teaching on "Subordinationism" which, by definition, is "heretical teaching" is a "growing" phenomenon in SBC life. Boyce was quoted to suggest otherwise.

If you'd like to dispute that conclusion, I'd be open to your view. Otherwise, to suggest someone--least of all me--is attempting to "canonize" either Boyce or Hodge, is simply not true.

With that, I am...

Peter

Lindon said...

"Anyone want their views of feminism turned upside down? Check out www.feministsforlife.org. Not all feminists are god hating, man hating, militant pro-abortionists! Feminism in and of itself is only women wanting equal rights as men, and saying that women should not have to submit to abuse. Most early feminists, even, were pro-life."

Palin, Christian woman, is a member of Feminists for Life. I wonder if Miss Tartar knows this or if it would change her opinion of Palin?

I think CBMW's stand on Palin may result in more comp women running for office. :o)

Anonymous said...

To Elisabeth,

You wrote, "Feminism in and of itself is only women wanting (the same) equal rights as men, and saying that women should not have to submit to abuse."

I like this. I believe in this. If this is what feminism is all about, then it's okay by me. Count me in.

L's Gran

P.S. Time to go watch Sarah's debate!

debbiekaufman said...

Peter: From the CBMW site:

To quote Ware in summary, "There is, then, an eternal and immutable equality of essence between the Father and the Son, while there is also an eternal and immutable authority-submission structure that marks the relationship of the Father and the Son."

Cindy said...

Peter,

I'm sorry that I misunderstood your point. When I was a trusting young girl and in my denomination, Jimmy Swaggart was the man who could do no wrong. I'm not longer so trusting of anyone who I am told has a special connection to God. I won't be able to stand before the Throne and say "because so and so said it was true."

The specific twist on the idea of subordination is new, though the idea of subordinationism has been with us quite a long time. During the 1800s, subordinationism was argued in support of the social hierarchy of slavery based on race. And subordinationism in general is an age old and time-honored concept in the cults.

Bruce Ware teaches that Jesus does not have authority to answer prayer, and all the Son does is deliver prayer to the Father. (I've seen a great number of emails that he exchanged with an apologist who asked him many questions in an attempt to clarify their understanding of Ware's views specifically. Ware clarified these matters for that apologist, when confronted about some of his more vague statements.) It is also incumbent upon Christ to go to the Father to get permission to answer prayer and had to get permission to create. Jesus can do nothing apart from the Father's will (which apparently is a separate will).

I don't think Hodge taught anything remotely like that, and I'm not all that familiar with Boyce, so I wouldn't know.

Lindon said...

"You write: "Equality within the Trinity is hardly a feminist idea. It is pure orthodoxy." I agree. Yet, as Baptist theologians have pointed out, it is a mistake to overlook the distinction theologians have been careful to employ. Compare Boyce's view I just cited."

Those 'distinctions' can slip into heresy real quick. Very few deny the diety of Jesus Christ in the Trinity... outright.

It is what they say AFTER they (SBTS, Grudem, etc) make that declaration...that worries me. It is very subtle and if they had not used this teaching to try and prove inherent male hierarchy on earth, we probably would not be having this discussion.

I think they have done us all a great big favor and for that, I am grateful.

I am a simpleton. So, I believe that anything that even hints at downgrading Jesus Christ in any way shape or form is to be avoided like the plague. Actually, I think it IS a plague.

Lindon said...

"During the 1800s, subordinationism was argued in support of the social hierarchy of slavery based on race. And subordinationism in general is an age old and time-honored concept in the cults."

Dabney?

Cindy said...

Lindon,

I can be a simpleton, too sometimes. I actually own a copy of Dabney's Systematic Theology. I cannot find where he argues a subordination within the Trinity, and there are actually some strong statements against it. But being a woman and a simpleton, I may have missed it in there. I was actually looking with my fingers crossed, hoping to find Dabney orthodox. So in my idealistic hope, I might have missed it.

Dabney does argue social subordination and hierarchy, for different racial groups and for women. If he argued that there was subordination within the Trinity, I missed it.

I can pull it back out and take a look...

Anonymous said...

Hi Cindy,

From your description of Bruce Ware, it is obvious he does not believe in the Holy Trinity. What religion is Bruce Ware? Please don't tell me he is a Southern Baptist!

Thanks,
L's Gran

Anonymous said...

Dear Wade,
I am very confused. If I wanted to learn about the core beliefs of the Southern Baptist Church, where would I go?

I am not comfortable with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. I think the older one (BF&M) is much more Christ-centered.

The variety of interpretations of doctrines by bloggers is extensive, which adds to my confusion, Perhaps the differences are more a matter of what is emphasized, but some of the extremes seem contradictory.

So, if you were me, very much an outsider, what sources do you recommend? I can trust you. You have credibility with me. Please don't refer me to any of those who harmed the missionaries. I do not trust them, in matters of Christian religion. I own a KJV of the Scriptures that was my grandmother's.

Please advise some resources that you think might help. :) Thank you,

L's Gran

Wade Burleson said...

Peter,

Your verbose comments are rife with assurances that no Southern Baptist believes in "eternal subordination" in the Trinity, and if they do, they are wrong.

You, ignore, however, the very words that led to this post - a Southern Baptist employeee pointing to the subordination of a woman to a man because of her understanding of the Trinity. Debbie Kaufman, Lydia, I and others have given you additional quotes of Southern Baptists and former Southern Baptists. If you desire more research for yourself, you may read here and follow the links. Regardless of whether or not we will ever provide you with sufficient verification that Southern Baptists are moving toward a view of eternal subordination within the Trinity, I'm glad to know you believe the teaching is wrong.

You sure seem to go a very, very long (and verbose) way around to fanally say you agree with me.

Blessings,

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

L's Gran,

Each church is free to establish their own doctrinal statement of faith. The Convention is an alliance of independent, autonomous Baptist churches. Since some in the SBC are demanding beliefs in doctrinal issues that go way beyond the BFM 2000, I am telling my people that our church acts as our doctrinal confession. You can find our church's statement of faith under "church doctrine" in the bar to the left here

Anonymous said...

Dear Wade,

Thank you for the help. It is very much appreciated. :)

L.'s G

peter lumpkins said...

Wade,

It's obvious, Wade, that the verbosity of my comments has apparently caused you not to read my comments. To remotely suggest that my posts are "rife" that "no Southern Baptist believes in "eternal subordination" in the Trinity, and if they do, they are wrong." is so far removed from what I have written, I'm simply lost as to how you make such a suggestion.

I challenge anyone here to glean such a view as you offer, backing it up, of course, by mentioning precisely the words I wrote to substantiate such.

If you would please be more careful in your analysis of what I post. I'd rather you ignore my comments as to mutilate what I do write.

Good night. With that, I am...

Peter

peter lumpkins said...

Debbie,

The quote you offer makes exactly the distinction that Boyce makes in his textbook. There is subordination not of "essence" or "being" but "function" or "relation". Whatever, it is called by respective theologians, the *WHO* never is subordinate but the *DO* is. Read Debbie. Read, Read, Read (for old times' sake:^).

With that, I am...

Peter

Anonymous said...

Dear Wade,

I was able to read and understand most of your church's doctrine as listed on your site. Some differences, of course, but I did notice many similarities to my religion's Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed.

It is obvious that parts of your church's doctine and parts of my church's creeds have similar roots. :)

Thanks again,
L's Gran

Wade Burleson said...

Peter,

As you stand by your comments, so I stand by mine.

And, since you seem dissatisfied with my responses - alleging I mutilate your meaning - and have professed a desire that I ignore your comments if I cannot understand them accurately, then I shall take you up on your request. I encourage you to continue to read my posts, continue to comment as much as you desire, and I will not attempt to respond since I never seem to do so to your satisfaction.

A good evening to you as well.

To my church member Debbie Kaufman. Feel free to respond to Peter in my place. I believe you have done an excellent job and I understand what you say precisely! And it gives me great pleasure to see one of the sharpest females in our church teaching Peter a think or two from Scripture and history.

:)

Chris said...

Kathy,

Your lack of biological understanding is apparent (perhaps proof that men are smarter than women). Men and women share all the information in the "Y" chromosome. It is in the extra bit that forms an "X" chromosome in the woman that the differences are found. It is there that you will find a "submission" gene.

I say this, of course, as a total joke (being an egalitarian),although the biology is correct. I just figured that wit called for wit.

Anonymous said...

Peter,

Peter Piper packs a peck of party pooper posts.

With that, I am . . .

Bill

peter lumpkins said...

Wade,

Well, I'll be. Just when we were beginning to bond:^)

You may do as you wish, Wade. I shall, as time permits, continue to question what I perceive to be the unjustified assaults on brothers' views and post them here so long as you, the bloghost, allow.

If you choose not to respond, I respect that decision (Though personally I could not do so toward legitimate challenges to my ideas on my own blog).

Nor will I be exchanging much with our sister Debbie, I assure. One or two quick, short exchanges is about all the blessing I can stand :^0.

Good Night (for REAL! this time:^)

With that, I am...

Peter

Only By His Grace said...

Please excuse me if I ramble. I have been very ill with the flu since Sunday night. I have five fifteen year old bypasses and a damaged heart from three heart attacks. The flu does not help me think clearly. Today was my fourth day in bed.


Wade when the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One, there can be no subordination in thought, action or will since He are (is) eternally perfect.

HOWEVER,
I need prayer help with all who will pray with me and my church.

I have a wonderful family in my church from India. They joined our church and we accepted them by statement from their Baptist Church in India. I really do not care who baptized them or who baptized their baptizers (nsw) before them. I just know they love the Lord, love our church, love even me and love their sisters and brothers back home in India. They joined our church some three years ago. They are Sudar (father) Presiana (mother), Paul (24), Sheila (22) and Sharon (21).

After church Sunday all five stayed behind to speak with me. I felt a sense of sadness over shadowing them. Suda ask me to pray for their brothers in Northern India. It seems there has been an uprising of Hindu against Christians. At least twenty-six Christian pastors have been horribly murdered, numerous churches burned with over 65,000 Christians missing, mostly hiding in the forests.

Paul sent me about thirty pictures showing the carnage of burned churches and raging mobs.

As Suda told me this story his wife and both daughters began crying. I asked them to join me in prayer. Suda and Paul stepped out of their shoes onto the church carpet as I led them in prayer.

Please pray for them and this situation.

To our Loving Lord Jesus is all the glory.

Phil in Norman.

Anonymous said...

Dear Phil,
Considering your medical history,if you have been ill with flu for this long, and you are experiencing light-headedness, let your M.D. know. You might need some I.V. fluids if you have dehydrated. Prayers,

WORRIED

Glen Alan Woods said...

Phil,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have been and will continue to pray. I have been in contact with a Pastor in India for the past year. He recently sent me news and photos of these events. He and all the believers in India surely will appreciate our prayers and support.

Darby Livingston said...

Wow, Wade, this is almost a record number of comments, even for your blog. You struck a nerve on this one. May I suggest that everyone take a deep breath, have a Hebrew cookie made by Southwestern home-ec students, tip back some new wine that everyone in the Bible seemed to be able to get drunk on, but is no longer alcoholic, pray for wisdom on this issue in a supernatural tongue, get re-baptized again to make sure it stuck this time, and refer this whole issue to the executive committee for further instructions?

Anonymous said...

I was away from the blog too long and it became so filled it took me quite a while to read all comments, which I felt I should before I commented. I also read Miss (I hesitate to call her Ms. since she would probably reject that title) Tater's article, though it was a struggle for me to get through it without laughing, crying, or being sick.

So feminism is not rejection of male authority but rejection of the Creator? What would she call male rejection of the Creator? And how is rejection of male authority automatically rejection of the Creator?

I have heard Jesus called a feminist because he treated women so much better than they were treated by the culture of that time. I'm scared to think what some would make of that idea.

I don't believe the creation story (either in Genesis 1 or 2) teaches male superiority. In Genesis it is stated that humans were created in God's image, male and female. No hierarchy there unless you get hung up on word order. If you make a big thing about the order of creation in Genesis 2, does that make animals superior to humans because they were created first? You might as well say that woman was superior because she was created last, but few claim that.

I don't claim to completely understand the Trinity, and I don't think any other human can either, though we try. But if someone is trying to make some sort of superior/subordinate comparison between the Trinity and the two sexes, I know enough math to say that 3=2 does not compute. Or are they leaving the Holy Spirit out of the equation?

If woman was made inferior to man because of the fall, does it mean that men can regain what was lost in the fall through Jesus but women can't?

I can think of many other questions but it's late and I don't think that people who think otherwise would be convinced by anything a woman says anyway. (unless of course she was agreeing with them).

Susie

Anonymous said...

Just realized a funny:

At one point, here is the gender of each commenter in this stream...

-Female
-Female
-Female
-Female
-Female
-Female
-Male (well, it was Peter though)
-Male (still Peter and same comment)
-Male (still Peter, same comment)
-Female
-Female
-Female
-Anonymous (suspect female based on the use of the word "feminist" 3 times)
-Female
-Female
-Female
-Male (Hi Peter)
-Female
-Female
-Female
-Female

It kind of reminded me of a scene at the hair dressers on a Saturday afternoon from The Andy Griffith Show. :)

Three words Wade...

Football or Nascar!

Disclaimer: I'm only joking so please don't start throwing around spirituality and talking about how this attitude is exactly what's wrong with America, or the church, or the world. Most men already know this and agree with that statement anyway.

:)

SL1M

Anonymous said...

If Southern Theological Seminary is in STEPFORD, and Ms. Tarter shows us about the 'before' and 'after' of what happens to women in STEPFORD; then, Baptist parents: get your daughters out of there before it's too late.

Talk about needing cult de-programming! Someone, PLEASE help this poor woman!

greg.w.h said...

I'll interpret Peter perfectly: he believes that Wade has no standing in the Convention to say what he says BECAUSE he believes that a real Christian would not continue to pick trivial fights with brothers and sisters in the faith.

So...he proceeds to pick trivial fights with Wade in an attempt to show how much better Peter's approach is to Wade's.

It's VERY Southern Baptist to be that hypocritical, so I'm not sure why anyone would complain about Peter's behavior?

Greg Harvey

Wanda Martin said...

I have just read Miss Courtney Tart's article "Confessions of a Recovering Feminist", which Wade discusses in this post. I now understand why his wife was so disturbed by it, and I encourage others to read it for themselves. There are some serious doctrinal problems in this article, as highlighted by Wade.

Miss Tarter's last paragraph really caught my attention. She writes: "And when I still feel the judgment rising up in me when I see a young woman joyfully choosing marriage and a family over a . . ." Over a what? A career? No, "over a college degree"!!! Then she concludes the sentence with the following remark: "I realize that I have a long way to go before this feminist is fully recovered."

Did you catch the not so subtle hint from Miss Tarter that women should joyfully choose marriage and a family over a college degree? I guess in Miss Tarter's mind, they are mutually exclusive.

I have become aware of a trend in the SBC only in recent weeks, and it involves young marriages. The powers that be in the SBC are encouraging young couples to get married early, even while they are in high school. Al Mohler wrote an article by the following title "The Sin of Singleness". You can read all about it on the internet. This begs the question of why Miss Courtney Tart is still single. Isn't it a sin not to marry and procreate?

A couple of years ago, Al Mohler visited a large Baptist church where I live, and in a message he delivered to the entire congregation, he openly called the singles ministry at that church an ABOMINATION! I did not personally hear his remark, but pastors as well as congregants at the church confirmed that this is indeed what he said.

Statistics show that divorce among couples who marry early is much higher than for couples who marry in their twenties. It just makes sense that college educated couples will be more secure both emotionally and financially. The divorce rate is already high in the SBC, but it's nothing compared to what it will grow to in years to come should this trend of young marriages continue.

The SBC is desperate to increase its shrinking membership roll, and I guess this is yet another strategy to boost membership. If you haven't yet heard the term "quiver full" from SBC leadership, just wait . . . Dorothy Patterson is now speaking out against any form of birth control. I guess that will soon become a sin, just like singleness (to Mohler).

What ever happened to growing the SBC through evangelism? I'm beginning to realize that the SBC leadership is clueless as to how to impact a lost and dying world. Those leaders are now trying to micromanage what's left of the membership, which is having devastating results. The legalism within the SBC that reared its ugly head in 2000 will bring about the denomination's demise unless something changes drastically. . .

Anonymous said...

Wow, this post really took off. I will not be reading this book because I am too busy. It will go in the unread stack with all of the other hot items that really don't interest me.

I would like to hear some opinions about something have noticed over the years at various churches I have attended.

Why is that the Men's Ministry groups seem to be able to accommodate a variety of backgrounds, interests etc. without any compulsion for all of the guys to be the same? In men's groups there might be CEOs, trash collectors, people that never went to college and guys with Ph.Ds and they all seem to focus on ministry rather than culture issues.

Many women's ministry groups do not tolerate that diversity in career and family choices. If the women leading the group are homeschooling types, there is cultural pressure that is added to the group to be homeschoolers. Or, if the group is led by career women, there seems to be pressure to be career oriented, and homeschooling stay at home types are tolerated, but not celebrated.

I have no explanation for this phenomenon that is satisfactory.

I would be interested if any of you have seen the same thing in your churches.

Also, Wanda Martin, I have enjoyed reading your comments. Quick question - you have cited statistical trends (not specific studies) in a couple of your comments.

In one you said that the SBC had the highest divorce rate of any of the protestant denominations. (I think I have the quote right). Can you please direct me to the study that you are citing. I have no idea which group has the highest divorce rate. The SBC may have the largest number of divorces by sheer numbers, but you said the rate was highest.

Also, in your last post you said that young marriages fail more than marriages that are made later in life. I recognize intuitively that is probably true. But again, if you could direct me to recent data that you might be talking about, I would find it interesting to read.

Thanks.

Louis

You have made some thoughtf

Bill said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thy Peace said...

Amen (to Wanda Martin's comment)

Bill said...

In all fairness, I don't believe Tim G. said he believes in the eternal subordination of Christ, at least not in the last post on his site. He didn't say he disbelieved it either, but that's not the same thing.

Bill Mac

(I'm not the anonymous Bill who is taunting Peter)

Wanda Martin said...

I apologize for the misspelling of Miss Tarter's name in my previous comment.

Louis:

I would be happy to share statistical information regarding the divorce rate of Baptists. The statistics to which I was referring in my initial post were based on a Barna study. Just follow this link:

www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html

Another interesting article on this topic may be found at:

www.divorcereform.org/mel/rbaptisthigh.html

This AP article at the above link begins with the following statement: "Baptists have the highest divorce rate of any Christian denomination and are more likely to get a divorce than atheists and agnostics, according to a national survey."

With regard to young marriages, I found an interesting article "The young and the engaged: Despite high divorce rates, young marriages are rising" by Azka Khan at KentNewsNet.com

The article states: According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics marriages before the age of 25 have a 60 percent divorce rate."

I have other statistics and articles that I would be glad to share if there is an interest. Researching this topic is very easy. Just search topics such as young marriages, getting married early, and Southern Baptist and all kinds of information will be at your fingertips. I have spend hours reading this information, and that's why I'm so alarmed by the recent trend of young marriages in the SBC.

Anonymous said...

Louis is a genius: "Why is that the Men's Ministry groups seem to be able to accommodate a variety of backgrounds, interests etc. without any compulsion for all of the guys to be the same? In men's groups there might be CEOs, trash collectors, people that never went to college and guys with Ph.Ds and they all seem to focus on ministry rather than culture issues.

Many women's ministry groups do not tolerate that diversity in career and family choices. If the women leading the group are homeschooling types, there is cultural pressure that is added to the group to be homeschoolers. Or, if the group is led by career women, there seems to be pressure to be career oriented, and homeschooling stay at home types are tolerated, but not celebrated."

Beautifully summed up my friend. This comment stream bears witness to it in my opinion.

Wanda - Others have "amened" your comment and maybe rightfully so. I don't know and don't care. But I do want to ask you one thing.

Do you really think that Al Mohler believes that if you are single you are living in sin?

Here is your quote. It's out of context, but remains faithful to what you said. "...I guess that will soon become a sin, just like singleness (to Mohler)."

Please don't react emotionally (passionate?) and go crazy on me. I'm just simply asking if you really and truly believe that.

If you are going on second or third or fifth or eleventh hand information about what someone else heard someone else say that their mother told them what Al Mohler said at their cousin's church back in 2007, then that is a non-answer. In fact, that should cause you to think DEEPER about what you might say about someone...not less.

I can guess that ___________ doesn't think Mohler believes that living single is living sinful.

(Fill in the blank with any evangelical Christian you choose.)

Thanks for answering in the spirit in which this is written. :)

SL1M

Anonymous said...

Good morning, Wanda Martin

You commented the following:

"Miss Tarter's last paragraph really caught my attention. She writes: "And when I still feel the judgment rising up in me when I see a young woman joyfully choosing marriage and a family over a . . ." Over a what? A career? No, "over a college degree"!!! "

So, Wanda, Ms. Tarter is also a protege of Mohler. So now we women should avoid education????

I'm glad that the trauma hospital woman surgeon did not, in her religion, follow the likes of Mohler and Moore. It was this surgeon's skill that saved the life of one of my children.

Oh, but now I remember, this woman surgeon was Islamic in faith. So she could not have been influenced by the likes of Moore and Mohler; this surgeon may have had her own Islamic versions of Moore and Mohler to cope with.

Extreme fundamentalists share opinions about the 'place' of women in the world of men: whether they are Christian or Islamic. I wonder if Moore and Mohler aren't taking their cue from the extremists of another faith? What do you think?

L's Gran

Rex Ray said...

Only by his Grace or Phil in Norman,
If we were all in India would we be so concerned about the unjust ‘limits’ some restrict God in his purpose for women.

Of course, I’m duplicating Judas saying, ‘this could have been sold and given to the poor’ that I criticized others of doing. (Thanks, Corrie, for the “Touche!”)

Phil, I just wanted to say your story breaks my heart. Because of poor memory, I checked your blog to see who you were and found you had asked why Hemphill was replaced at SWBTS. I was going to answer that today, but found I’d already commented a year ago on your blog that Hemphill didn’t have the heart to fire good people and the ‘powers that be’ wanted a ‘hatchet man’. Your prediction that “FunDAMmentalist” would tear the SBC to pieces is being proved right every day that goes by.

Wanda Martin,
Your comment is in no way in my opinion the best, but because you are the last to make a comment that I very much agree with, I’ll address this to you.

My Goodness! I started this first, then switched over to Phil, and now, I’ve forgotten what I was going to say. It's terrible to get old. Peter, could you help me out?

Horrors! I mean Cindy, Tom Parker, Lydia, or just about anybody.

Anonymous said...

Wanda:

I checked the Barna Study - Nondenoms 34%; Baptists 29% (it did not differentiate between types, so I guess it included all baptist denominations); Episcopalians 28%; Pentecostals 28%; Methodist 26%; Presbyeterians 23%; Catholic 21%; Lutheran 21%.

Thanks for sending this to me. It does not say that the SBC has the highest divorce rate. And the non-denoms are at 34%.

I wonder if he did the study in Texas. Isn't everybody in Texas a Baptist?

I have been in several SBC churches in my lifetime and would be surprised at the almost 1 in 3 number.

But it's too high, regardless.

And Episcopalian and Baptist theology could not be more different on the issue of women in mininstry and gender roles in particular, but their numbers are almost dead on.

So I have a hard time drawing any theological conclusions from this.

My take on high divorce rates in our society is that we are a historically wealthy, highly mobile, heavily populated and highly sexualized society. We can afford to divorce and make new lives for ourselves when that might not have been possible in earlier generations, most people live in large population centers where they will meet lots of available people of the opposite sex, the sexualized nature of our culture is undeniable, and you put all that together with sinful humanity and ta da - high divorce rates. The stigma also has been removed culturally from divorce, but some of that is "effect" as well as "cause." So, it's not surprising to me that the rates are high.

One would think that religious conviction would keep this rate low. One can only imagine what it would be if we had no religious conviction at all. Of course, the divorce rate would probably go down because there would not be as many marriages in the first place. We'd all be shacking up a lot more. Marriage would only occur when there was some real serious reason.

Thanks for the info.

Have a great day.

Louis

Anonymous said...

Good morning, Louis,

It's me, L's Gran. I was reading your commments on marriage and divorce. I think I cannot argue with you on any point. During my forty-year marriage, there have been times when I believe that it was the blessing of my marriage in Church held us together.

I have a dear teacher friend who is having marital problems. She has confided that it is her faith that is holding things together. I believe her. She is really suffering. She has a very strong faith and a very loving heart. And she would go through fire to keep her family together for the sake of her children. Hard for me to see her suffer; but I can understand, that sometimes it is the women in a marriage, for a while, MUST for the sake of the marriage, assume the stronger role and take the Christian lead. The truth is, we receive our greater strength during these times, from the Good Lord's mercy and grace.

Your friend,
L's Gran

peter lumpkins said...

Mr. Harvey,

Unfortunately, the approach you take is precisely why blogging oozes the dark perception that not only keeps many away but also reveals the lowest form of communication--criticize persons, call persons names--all the while offering not one substantive syllable to the the issue at hand.

I suggest a better approach is to make contribution by offering a compelling case for you view or why another view is wrong than judging others as possessing what can only be, according to your measuring stick, a sub-Christian faith.

I trust you day goes well.

With that, I am...

Peter

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 387   Newer› Newest»